Beef Quality Assurance: Does it really matter at branding?

Adele Harty and Robin Salverson, South Dakota State University | Updated: 05/19/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

Branding season is an important time of the year, not only for cattle health and well-being, but as a time for networking and fellowship with neighbors. With that networking comes a great responsibility to continue to work to provide a safe and wholesome product for the consumer. Producers need to be aware of and follow proper Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) guidelines during brandings and communicate that to their branding crew, especially in the administration of injections.
Below is an overview of the Steps in Administering Injections Properly:

1. Select the right product for your need.
   • Work with your veterinarian to determine what product(s) are needed for your cattle.
2. Read the label and determine the dosage to be given, timing of administration, and route of administration.
3. Don’t combine vaccines in the same syringe.
4. Use transfer needles if a product needs to be reconstituted, this will be done with the Modified Live Vaccines (MLV). Proper equipment is key to success.
   • Mix thoroughly. Rolling the bottle is preferred to shaking to decrease the number of bubbles formed in the product.
5. Don’t mix too much of a MLV at once because once the product is mixed it needs to be used within hours to ensure efficacy. Read the label to determine the maximum time a product can be mixed before it needs to be discarded.
6. To prevent cross-contamination mark and separate syringes so that the same vaccine is always in the syringe labeled for that vaccine.
7. Keep vaccines out of the direct sunlight or extreme temperatures to avoid degradation of the vaccine.
8. Get air out of syringes because injecting air into the animal could prove fatal if it gets into the bloodstream.
9. Restrain animals properly to decrease stress and improve the accuracy of proper injection location.
10. Choose the right needle. See table.
11. Select best route of administration. If the product is labeled for both Intramuscular(IM) and Subcutaneous (SQ) administration, SQ use is preferable as there is less chance for an injection site lesion that can negatively impact meat quality and tenderness.
12. Choose best site of administration. Give all injections in the neck region. See diagram.
13. When giving multiple injections, keep all vaccinations at least 4 inches apart. This is challenging with calves, however, keeping them apart is important to get the best response from our vaccines. If more than one person is giving shots, either chalk mark where you gave the shot or discuss beforehand where each vaccinator will be giving their shot. Chalking calves is also helpful so you don’t revaccinate an animal when there are multiple calves on the ground.
14. Use a proper injection technique, which means tenting for subcutaneous. Never administer more than 10 cc into any one site.
15. Change needles frequently, every 10 to 20 animals. A good rule of thumb is to change needles before refilling the vaccine gun to avoid transferring contamination into vaccine bottles or have one clean needle that is used to draw the vaccine from the bottle.
16. Sanitation is essential as it helps reduce the risk of spreading infection, and reduces injection site reactions.
17. Don’t clean syringes used for modified live vaccines (MLV) with disinfectants as the disinfectant can kill the vaccine and render it ineffective. Use hot water to clean these syringes.
18. Keep Accurate Records.
    • Individual animal or pen ID
    • Date treated
    • Product administered
    • Including name, company, product lot and serial number
    • Dosage
    • Route of administration
    • Withdrawal time and earliest date withdrawal period will be cleared
    • Processor name and/or initials

Subcutaneous - 1/2 to 3/4 inch needle
Injectable Viscosity	Cattle Weight (lbs)
	<300	300-700	>700
Thin (needle gauge) Ex: Saline	18	18-16	16
Thick (needle guage) Ex: Oxytetracycline	18-16	18-16	16

Intramuscular - 1/2 to 3/4 inch needle
Injectable Viscosity	Cattle Weight (lbs)
	<300	300-700	>700
Thin (needle gauge) Ex: Saline	20-18	18-16	18-16
Thick (needle guage) Ex: Oxytetracycline	18	16	16

Clarifying which U.S. waters are within EPA’s jurisdiction

Daryll E. Ray and Harwood D. Schaffer, University of Tennessee Extension | Updated: 05/19/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

In enforcing the Clean Water Act (CWA), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) have clear jurisdiction over “[1] traditional navigable waters; [2] interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; [3] the territorial seas; [and 4] impoundments of traditional navigable waters, [and] interstate waters, including interstate wetlands, [and] the territorial seas.” The further upstream a water body, intermittent stream, or wetland is from one of these, the less clear it becomes that the EPA and the COE have jurisdiction.
This lack of clarity has resulted in lawsuits on behalf of landowners, several of which have ended up before the US Supreme Court. In the 2001 and 2006 cases, justices argued that there must a “significant nexus” between other waters and those over which the agencies have clear jurisdiction for the agencies to exercise regulatory control. The purpose of the April 21, 2014 proposed rule, “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act,” is in part to clarify what that “significant nexus” is and what waters would fall under the jurisdiction of the EPA and/or the COE. All quoted material in this article comes from the Proposed Rule.
To accomplish this goal, the “EPA’s Office of Research and Development prepared a draft peer-reviewed synthesis of published peer-reviewed scientific literature discussing the nature of connectivity and effects of streams and wetlands on downstream waters.... The draft Report provides a review and synthesis of the scientific information pertaining to chemical, physical, and biological connections from streams, wetlands, and open waters such as oxbow lakes, to downstream larger water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and estuaries in watersheds across the United States and the strength of those connections.” For the EPA, the first step is to identify the ways in which the scientific literature makes the connection between upstream tributaries and adjacent wetlands and downstream larger waters.
“Connectivity (emphasis added) is the degree to which components of a system are joined, or connected, by various transport mechanisms and is determined by the characteristics of both the physical landscape and the biota of the specific system. The structure and function of downstream waters are highly dependent on the constituent materials contributed by and transported through waters located elsewhere in the watershed. Connectivity for purposes of interpreting the scope of ‘waters of the United States’ under the CWA serves to demonstrate the ‘nexus’ between upstream water bodies and the downstream traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial sea.
“Based on the literature, the Office of Research and Development was able to assess the types of connections between the tributaries and adjacent waters and the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.”
But identifying the nexus alone is not enough to satisfy the court’s concern. “as Justice Kennedy found…a mere hydrologic connection may not suffice in all cases to establish CWA jurisdiction and there needs to be ‘some measure of the significance (emphasis added) of the connection for downstream water quality.’”
In the proposed rule the agencies write, “The data and conclusions in the Report concerning the strength of the relevant connections (emphasis added) and effects of certain types of waters on downstream waters provide a foundation for the agencies’ determinations that certain waters have effects on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas that are ‘significant’ (emphasis added) and thus constitute a significant nexus (emphasis added).”
The proposed rule says, “the Report concludes that the scientific literature clearly demonstrates that streams, regardless of their size or how frequently they flow, strongly influence how downstream waters function. Streams supply most of the water in rivers, transport sediment and organic matter, provide habitat for many species, and take up or change nutrients that could otherwise impair downstream waters.
“The Report also concludes that wetlands and open waters in floodplains of streams and rivers and in riparian areas (transition areas between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems) have a strong influence on downstream waters. Such waters act as the most effective buffer to protect downstream waters from nonpoint source pollution (such as nitrogen and phosphorus) [it should be noted that much of the potential pollution caused by farming is nonpoint source pollution], provide habitat for breeding fish and aquatic insects that also live in streams, and retain floodwaters, sediment, nutrients, and contaminants that could otherwise negatively impact the condition or function of downstream waters.
“Regarding wetlands and open waters located outside of floodplains and riparian areas, the Report finds that they provide many benefits to rivers, lakes, and other downstream waters. If the wetland or open water has a surface or shallow subsurface water connection to the river network, it affects the condition of downstream waters.
“Where the wetland or open water is not connected to the river network through surface or shallow subsurface water, the type and degree of connectivity varies geographically, topographically, and ecologically, such that the significance of the connection is difficult to generalize across the entire group of waters.
“Lastly, the Report concludes that to understand the health, behavior, and sustainability of downstream waters, the effects of small water bodies in a watershed need to be considered in aggregate. The contribution of material by, or an important water-retention function of, a particular stream, other open water, or wetland might be small, but the aggregate contribution by an entire class of streams, other open waters, and wetlands (e.g., all ephemeral streams in the river network) can be substantial.”
Based on the draft report, the agencies conclude that both “tributary streams” and “adjacent waters,” as defined in the proposed rule, “perform the requisite functions for them to be considered ‘waters of the United States’ by rule.” In addition, “other waters” may, in some cases, perform these requisite functions.” But the agencies are proposing that these would be evaluated on a case-specific basis.
The agencies assert that the scientific literature shows that the included waters “supply sediment, wood, organic matter, nutrients, chemical contaminants, and many of the organisms found in downstream traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.”
Furthermore, “These chemical, physical, and biological connections affect the integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas through the export of channel-forming sediment and woody debris, storage of local groundwater sources of baseflow for downstream waters and their tributaries, and transport of organic matter. Wetlands and open waters located in riparian and floodplain areas remove and transform nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. They provide nursery habitat for fish, and colonization opportunities for stream invertebrates.
“Adjacent waters, including those located in riparian and floodplain areas, serve an important role in the integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas because they also act as sinks for water, sediment, nutrients, and contaminants that could otherwise negatively impact traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and the territorial seas.”
In the next column, we will examine the definition that the agencies have developed for the term “waters of the United States.”

Feeder Cattle Review: Demand peaking for replacement females

USDA | Updated: 05/16/2014

Compared to last week, yearling feeder cattle sold 2.00-5.00 higher with the full advance placed on those weighing over 800 lbs. Steer and heifer calves traded steady to 5.00 higher with lightweights (under 500 lbs) continuing to make up a larger percentage of the total offering than normal as producers simply cannot resist current price levels.
At the OKC-West El Reno Livestock Market, the feeders weighing over 900 lbs were quoted 8.00-10.00 higher than last week with 625 head of top quality 900-1000 lb steers averaging 951 lbs at 169.55. There has been an extra push lately for heavy feeders from Northern Plains buyers that have headed south in an effort to fill both commercial and farmer feedlot orders. There have also been reports of many Nebraska tagged pickups taking inventory of turned-out Kansas Flint Hills and Oklahoma Osage yearlings, many of which will be coming off double stocked pastures in July.
Available feeder offerings are drying-up faster than a California cow pasture. Demand is also still peaking for replacement females as all the signals are blinking for cow/calf producers to speed up the assembly line. Tuesday at the Ozark’s Regional Stockyard, just north of the Missouri-Arkansas equator, a pot load of fancy 774 lb mostly red and red motley-faced heifers took the roof off the newly remodeled auction arena with the gavel dropping at 215.00 or 1664.00/hd. Somewhere in the Midwest this week, a row-crop farmer was listening to a cattle auction report on his tractor radio while pulling his corn/soybean planter and it dawned on him that he probably should be planting grass.
Friday’s cattle-on-feed report lent even more support to the skyrocketing feeder cattle market. May 1st on-feed inventories were just as expected at 99 percent of a year ago (lower than the previous year for the 21st consecutive report). Placements of feeder cattle into feeding facilities were less than forecasted at 95 percent of 2013; while marketings of fed cattle during April were right on with estimates at 98 percent, and the lightest marketings for the month since the series began in 1996. Cattle markets waited and waited for hard evidence that our supplies were indeed getting as low as many thought, now the data keeps cattle sold 1.00-3.00 lower for the week from 145.00-147.00 and mostly 2.00 lower dressed at 234.00. This week’s reported auction volume included 50 percent over 600 lbs and 43 percent heifers.

Here’s what GMO labeling will cost families

Angela Bowman, Staff Writer | Updated: 05/19/2014

Get ready to dig deeper into your wallets during grocery checkout if labeling of food containing genetically modified ingredients is made mandatory. In a new study, Cornell University found that in New York a proposed genetically modified organisms (GMO) labeling bill could cost families as much as $800 per year.
The study, completed by Bill Lesser of the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University, evaluates additional costs passed from the industry to consumers if forced labeling is made law in New York State.
The labeling law would increase food costs for a family of four by an average of $500 annually. Of the three labeling compliance options in the state, the midpoint value is $224 or $1.1 billion annually for all New Yorkers.
It’s not only families who will be shelling out more for food. The state could also be facing millions of dollars in added costs to implement and monitor the labeling initiative. It would also account for a loss in farm income.
“American families deserve safe, abundant and affordable food,” Claire Parker, spokeswoman for the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food, said in a news statement. “GMOs have been used in our food supply for more than 20 years and no study has ever shown them to be unsafe or different from foods without GMOs. Repeated studies, however, have shown that the high cost of mandatory labeling would dramatically increase the price of groceries at the checkout aisle for consumers. A mandatory GMO label will just make it more difficult and expensive for hard-working American families to put food on the table.”
Click here to read the full study.

McDonald’s aims to ‘collaborate not mandate’ on sustainability

Mary Soukup, Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 05/16/2014

Earlier this year McDonald’s announced its intent to purchase verified sustainable beef beginning in 2016. Bob Langert, McDonald’s Vice President, was on hand in Nashville in February during the Annual Cattle Industry Convention to talk with America’s cattle producers about the company’s sustainability-related goals and to reassure cattlemen and women that McDonald’s intends to collaborate with industry on this project, not mandate new requirements on them. Watch some of what Langert had to say and also some responses from cattlemen about sustainability in the above video.
This is a topic that is not going away, but it doesn’t have to be an “us versus them” issue either because, in my opinion, beef production is sustainable. For example, according to research by the Beef Checkoff Program, between 2005 and 2011, the beef industry has reduced emissions to soil by 7 percent, greenhouse-gas emissions by 2 percent, acidification potential emission by 3 percent, emissions to water by 10 percent, water use by 3 percent, land use by 4 percent, resource consumption and energy use by 2 percent, and occupation accidents and illnesses by 32 percent. Cumulatively, the environmental and social footprint of the beef industry has been reduced by 7 percent in six years.
There's not a single, agreed-to definition yet for what sustainable beef is, but we have an opportunity to have a seat at the table in those discussions. We're producing more beef from fewer animals using fewer resources. We just may have to take a little extra time to write down, document and measure our improvement. In the future, we're going to have to prove it with regard to sustainability in the U.S. beef industry.
Watch the video, and read more about my thoughts on the topic of sustainability here. Then leave us a comment and let us know what you think.

Source: Zoetis News Release

Zoetis | Updated: 05/08/2014

Source: Zoetis News Release
Record-breaking snowfall and extremely cold temperatures have cow/calf producers excited for spring and all things that go with it: lush, green pastures; growing calves; and healthy cows. While winter may have taken its toll on many things, resilient parasites have proven to survive even the coldest of winters.
Ridding pastures of parasites is not simple during a long winter — they simply overwinter in cattle or pastures. In fact, studies demonstrate that infective larvae were able to survive on pastures during winter months.^1,2
“If parasites didn’t survive the winter, we would never have summer parasites to worry about,” said Gary Sides, PhD, Zoetis Cattle Technical Services. “It is important for producers from all geographies to implement a spring deworming program to help give cows a chance to rebound from the tough winter, be productive during calving and, ultimately, be ready for the next breeding season.”
Controlling parasites in cattle is not just beneficial for an animal’s immune system³ — there are performance advantages as well. It’s estimated that internal parasites cost the cattle industry about $3 billion each year in lost weight gains, poor feed conversion and increased disease.⁴ Since parasites also can suppress appetites and limit absorption of nutrients⁵ — ultimately reducing feed efficiency and gain — it’s important to have a deworming plan in place this spring.
“Coming off of a long winter, cows are in tougher shape and do not have any spare nutrients to fight off parasites,” Dr. Sides explained. “Spring is the most critical season in the cow’s life, and with cattle prices at all-time highs, we need to take advantage of every opportunity to keep them in shape, including deworming at branding or turnout.”
Internal parasites, such as Ostertagia ostertagi or the brown stomach worm, can cause significant losses because of their impact on an animal’s health, reproduction, growth and productivity. For cows, it’s important to maintain good body condition and keep them ready for the next breeding season. For calves, every deworming offers the opportunity for significant improvement in productivity.⁶
“Parasites require grass and cattle to complete their life cycle,” Dr. Sides continued. “Therefore, you can be almost certain that cattle on grass are infected with parasites. Many different internal parasites can cause problems, but the brown stomach worm may be the most damaging internal parasite in cattle.
To help protect cattle against economically harmful parasites such as the brown stomach worm, Dr. Sides recommends using a broad-spectrum dewormer. DECTOMAX^® 1% Injectable or DECTOMAX Pour-On control Ostertagia ostertagi infections and protect from reinfection for up to 21 days and is safe for use in pregnant cows, newborn calves and bulls. In the Gulf States and West Coast where liver flukes are a concern, VALBAZEN^® provides comprehensive protection against the most damaging parasites.
“Fighting parasites that have overwintered on pastures is a simple, low-cost process and something every cow/calf producer should take advantage of during branding or turnout,” Dr. Sides explained. “By combining effective products with the expertise of their local veterinarians, producers can easily develop an effective parasite control program that best suits their herd and geography.”
IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION:
DECTOMAX Injectable has a 35-day pre-slaughter withdrawal period. DECTOMAX Pour-On has a 45-day pre-slaughter withdrawal period. Do not use in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. DECTOMAX has been developed specifically for cattle and swine. Use in dogs may result in fatalities.
Cattle must not be slaughtered within 27 days after the last treatment with VALBAZEN. Do not use in female dairy cattle of breeding age. Do not administer to female cattle during the first 45 days of pregnancy or for 45 days after removal of bulls.

Cornell University: Banning chocolate milk at elementary schools backfires

Monday, 21 April 2014 11:57
Progressive Dairyman

To some, banning chocolate milk from elementary schools seemed like a good idea, but new Cornell University research shows that removing chocolate milk from school menus has negative consequences.
“When schools ban chocolate milk, we found it usually backfires. On average, milk sales drop by 10 percent, 29 percent of white milk gets thrown out, and participation in the school lunch program may also decrease,” reports Andrew Hanks, lead author and research associate at Cornell’s Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management.
“This is probably not what parents wanted to see.”
The Cornell study, which included professors David Just and Brian Wansink, was published recently in PLOS ONE; it examines what happened when chocolate milk was banned in a sample of Oregon elementary schools. It shows what happens when chocolate milk-loving kids are suddenly confronted with something paler – and proposes what researchers hope can be a healthful compromise.

“Members of the school district’s PTA were adamantly opposed to offering chocolate milk in the cafeterias, claiming it was as bad as soda,” Hanks said. “While this policy does eliminate the added sugar in chocolate milk, it also introduces a new set of nutritional and economic consequences. Children typically don’t choose foods for health, but rather for taste.”

Nutritionally, after the milk substitution, students consumed less sugar and fewer calories; however, they also consumed less protein and calcium.

Here’s what the behavioral economics experts propose: “Instead of banning chocolate milk, make white milk appear more convenient and more ‘normal,’” said Wansink, co-author and director of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab.

“Put the white milk in the front of the cooler, and make sure that at least one-third to half of all the milk is white. We’ve found that this approach can increase sales by 20 percent or more." PD
—From Cornell University news release

Ag traditions can be dangerous

Written by Progressive Forage Grower Editor Lynn Jaynes  Published on 02 May 2014


It was the summer between my seventh and eighth grades when I went to Rex’s funeral. Rex was a year older than me, popular at school, athletic and charismatic. He had been helping his father farm when his tractor rolled. It was closed casket.

Two years ago I attended another tractor-incident funeral, this time for a pre-school boy who had been riding the tractor with his dad to feed cows – had done it dozens of times. His first fall from the tractor was his last.

Every three days in this country one of those ag-related funerals for another youth will be held. The Childhood Agricultural Safety Network (CASN) reports that four out of five farm children regularly ride tractors with family members. I did it, as a child. You probably did, too.

First time I remember driving a tractor was at about age 7. I think it was a little Massey 85. My dad put me on it, started it up, said, “Here’s the gas; just shut it off when you get to the barn.” Why didn’t he show me the brake? I’m sure my legs weren’t long enough to reach the brake, let alone strong enough to depress the brake. It was my first 4-mile-an-hour, white-knuckle drive. I think that’s how he “taught” all my siblings to drive. It was tradition.

With 41 percent of accidental farm deaths of children under 15 resulting from tractor incidents, it’s a tradition that should end. Today.

As I see it, the hold up for change has (and always will be), “Well, I did it and it didn’t hurt me.” Which is pretty stupid reasoning. I remember my grandpa telling me when he was a boy he herded cattle and found sticks of dynamite left in the sagebrush from a road construction project. He said he took his younger brother with him and they “lit ‘em up.” He was 11, his brother was 9.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that reasoning like “well, it didn’t hurt grandpa” isn’t a great strategy for future recreation plans. Yet, if it’s something we did as kids, we tend to excuse it. We think somehow it’ll add to the education and life experiences of our kids to loosen the reins a little, walk the line once in awhile. Problem is, the line is really more of a tightrope – an accident waiting to happen.

When are kids ready for farm work? What’s a good way to determine their aptitude and skill level? What age is appropriate for baling hay, for instance? And if one child is ready to pick up hay bales, does that mean he’s also ready to load silage into a silo?

The North American Guidelines for Children's Agricultural Tasks (NAGCAT) website lists questions (in Spanish and English) to help determine whether a child is ready for a variety of agriculture tasks. The list includes everything from pruning trees or catching and holding baby pigs to mowing and baling hay.
Some of the skills required among several tasks include:

• Can the child hitch and unhitch a 3-point implement or hydraulics or connect/disconnect PTO?
• Does the child have good peripheral vision?
• Can the child stay focused on a job up to 50 minutes?
• Can the child react quickly?
• Can the child recognize a hazard and solve the problem without getting upset?
• Does the child usually go with his or her “gut” feeling without thinking too much about what could happen next?
• Is your child responsible? Do you trust your child to do what’s expected without anyone checking?
• Does the child do things that seem dangerous for the thrill of it?
• Has an adult demonstrated this task on site?
• Has the child shown he or she can do the job safely 4-5 times under close supervision?
• Can the child understand and repeat from memory a 10-step process?
• Is the child going through a growth spurt? (Children in periods of rapid growth become less flexible, increasing the chance of muscle strain and injury to back and joints)

While the guidelines don’t cover every task and make some assumptions about the scale of machinery involved, it’s instructive to review the list. It makes you think about some scenarios and things you might not have considered before.

As a producer, and as the adult, you also have responsibilities. It’s your responsibility to ensure implements are in good working order with safety features in place, remove hazards from work areas, make sure the child and adult can communicate by cell phone or other method, make sure long hair is tied up, and make sure the child has at least one 10-minute break every hour and drinks a quart of fluids every hour.

In addition, the Secretary of Labor has standardized under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Regulations, 29 CFR Part 570.123, in The Hazardous Occupations Orders for Agricultural Employment) the following occupations as hazardous for minors under 16 years old:
1. Operating a tractor of over 20 power-take-off (PTO) horsepower, or connecting or disconnecting an implement or any of its parts to or from such a tractor.
2. Operating or assisting to operate (including starting, stopping, adjusting, feeding or any other activity involving physical contact associated with the operation) any of the following machines: corn picker, cotton picker, grain combine, hay mower, forage harvester, hay baler, potato digger, mobile pea viner; feed grinder, crop dryer, forage blower, auger conveyer, or the unloading mechanism of a nongravity-type self-unloading wagon or trailer; power post hole diggers, power post driver, or non-walking type rotary tiller.

3. Operating or assisting to operate (including starting, stopping, adjusting, feeding, or any other activity involving physical contact associated with the operation) any of the following machines:
a. trencher or earthmoving equipment
b. forklift
c. potato combine
d. power-driven circular, band, or chain saw

4. Working on a farm in a yard, pen, or stall occupied by:
a. bull, boar, or stud horse maintained for breeding purposes
b. a sow with suckling pigs, or a cow with a newborn calf (with umbilical cord present)

5. Felling, bucking, skidding, loading, or unloading timber with butt diameter of more than 6 inches.

6. Working from a ladder or scaffold (painting, repairing, or building structures, pruning trees, picking fruit, etc.) at a height of more than 20 feet.

7. Driving a bus, truck, or automobile when transporting passengers or riding on a tractor as a passenger or helper.

8. Working inside:
a. a fruit, forage, or grain storage designed to retain an oxygen deficient or toxic atmosphere
b. an upright silo within 2 weeks after silage has been added or when a top unloading device is in operating position
c. a manure pit
d. a horizontal silo while operating a tractor for packing purposes

9. Handling or applying toxic agricultural chemicals (including cleaning or decontaminating equipment, disposal or return of empty containers, or serving as a flagman for aircraft applying such chemicals). Such toxic chemicals are identified by the word “poison,” or “warning,” or are identified by a “skull and crossbones” on the label.

10. Handling or using a blasting agent, including but not limited to, dynamite, black powder, sensitized ammonium nitrate, blasting caps, and primer cord.

11. Transporting, transferring, or applying anhydrous ammonia.

In addition, minors under the age of 16 may not be employed during school hours, unless employed by a parent or “person standing in place of their parent.”

The term school hours is defined as those set by the official calendar of the school district in which a minor is living while employed in agriculture. No exception may be made for the early release of individual children or any class or grade to work in agriculture. Work before or after school hours, during weekends, or on other days that the school does not assemble is considered outside school hours.

The requirement that minors be employed outside the school hours of the public school district in which the minor is living while employed in agriculture applies even if that minor does not attend public school. These hours apply when the minor attends a private or parochial school, is home schooled, or has completed his or her formal education.

Did you know that – the limits for hiring even home-schooled children? Me neither. Not till now, anyway.

Maybe it’s time to reconsider how you’re using children on your operation and develop a documented plan. It beats planning a funeral. FG

Branding time and Beef Quality Assurance

Rob Eirich, University of Nebraska Extension | Updated: 05/05/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

It is spring and that means its branding time across cattle country. As producers are finishing calving season and preparing for branding it is important to review BQA guidelines. Let’s take a minute to look at the key BQA principles:

- Discuss calf vaccination protocols with your veterinarian to ensure a strong herd health program.
- Make sure everyone is focused on the importance of “low stress cattle handling” … the lower the stress the better response we will get from the vaccines we select.
- Select vaccines that can be administered subcutaneous when possible.
- Keep vaccines out of ultraviolet light and in a cooler at proper storage temperatures.
- Prepare (mix) modified live vaccines as needed and not more than one hour prior to administration.
- Use clean administering equipment (syringes).
- Select proper needle size for young calves, recommend using 16-18 gauge, 1/2 - 5/8 inch needles.
- Change needles every 15 head or each time the syringe is reloaded.
- Give all injections in the neck region.
- Maintain the proper processing records.

BQA is a commitment to the beef consumers that we are using the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to produce safe, wholesome beef products. Product quality and integrity starts at day one of a calf’s life through focusing on care, well-being, and health of those animals entrusted into the producer’s stewardship.

Cow disposition affects pregnancy rate

Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Extension | Updated: 05/05/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

Now we have another good excuse to cull cows due to bad temperament. Producers that routinely breed cows artificially realize that cows that are unruly and nervous are less likely to conceive to artificial insemination. Presumably the lowered conception rates were because they have been stressed as they are passed through the working facilities and restrained while being synchronized and inseminated. Now it seems that, even in the serenity of a natural breeding pasture, cows with bad dispositions are less likely to conceive when mated with bulls.
University of Florida animal scientists recorded disposition scores over two years on 160 Braford and 235 Brahman x British crossbred cows. They wanted to evaluate the effects of cow temperament and energy status on the probability to become pregnant during a 90-day natural breeding season. Cows were scored as 1= calm, no movement to 5= violent and continuous struggling while in the working chute. Also a pen score assessment was assigned as 1= unalarmed and unexcited to 5 = very excited and aggressive toward technician. An exit velocity speed score was measured as the cows exited the working chute as 1= slowest and 5 = fastest. An overall temperament index score was calculated by averaging the chute score, pen score and exit velocity score. Blood samples were analyzed for cortisol concentrations. Cortisol is a hormone released when mammals are stressed or excited. Increased cow temperament score and elevated plasma cortisol concentrations both were associated with decreased probability of pregnancy. These results suggest that excitable temperament and the consequent elevated cortisol concentrations are detrimental to reproductive function of cows. These authors concluded that management strategies that improve cow disposition, enhance their immune status, and maintain the cow herd at adequate levels of nutrition are required for optimal reproductive performance.
Source: Cooke and co-workers. 2009 Florida Beef Research Report.

USDA's Proposed Rule for Brazil Lacks Science and Sense

Steve Dittmer | Updated: 05/01/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

In evaluating USDA's Proposed Rule to import beef from Brazil, it is important to keep certain principles and factors in mind. I favor free trade. I favor scientific evidence in facilitating that trade, and I oppose catastrophic risk.
There is another psychological effect. That is the damage done by the BSE episode, which even now, more than a decade later, limits our access to world markets, colors our trade relations with other nations and took hundreds of millions of dollars out of the nation’s beef production chain. No one’s ever offered a refund.
All of that said, evaluating the proposed rule has seemed somewhat disconcerting, like any time it seemed someone should pop up and yell, “April Fool! We’re just kidding!” or, given the hard lessons taught to us by this administration – some whistleblower explaining the real, political motive behind this proposal that no one outside government had deciphered. Yet.
One has to remember this proposal is to import fresh or chilled beef into this country from Brazil, not to import live cattle or the virus. But try as I might, I found it is impossible because of the nature of this particular virus to completely separate the two because this virus can be so contagious. It travels in and on animals, on equipment, wrapping, vehicles and wind currents (30-70 miles) and causes both mortality and severe morbidity, that one can't entirely separate the meat and meat processing from the virus threat.
There is a reason Brazil has a team of professionals that descend at the first reports of this disease and slaughter every cloven-hoofed animal in sight, or more technically, any critter that could have been in contact with the stricken ones. It is a serious problem for the producer involved, for the surrounding countryside, the nation and surrounding nations. For a country with export customers, it is a bomb.
One factor getting minimal attention is the frightening prospect of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in North American wildlife. How could we become free of this virus ever again should our continent’s deer and elk population become infected with FMD? Hogs produce copious amounts of aerosol virus. Can you imagine FMD raging through the hordes of wild hogs roaming through the southern United States?
What we learned about applying science to trade under the threat of BSE only underlines the differences in this case. BSE is not a contagious disease, has a limited source of infection (feed contaminated with certain tissues) and has limited geographic scope compared to FMD. While all the science we would have preferred wasn’t available then, there was a considerable body of evidence. Most folks weren't aware of it because it wasn't necessary.
That isn't analogous to the FMD situation. While we know quite a bit about the virus, its effects on animals, how it travels and how to dispose of sick animals, there are critical things we do not know about the key question – how it could be transmitted through the import of meat.
The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) did as thorough an examination of that question as could be done with the available evidence and research results.* We do not know two critical things: how much infective virus it would take on meat or meat wrappings, boxes, containers, etc. to infect an animal; and how much lymphatic or bone residue remains in deboned beef that could potentially carry the virus.
Those are key reasons the OIE study concluded it was impossible at this time to conclude that the risk of bringing FMD in through deboned beef was "negligible" through applying strict slaughter procedures. A "negligible" risk could only be attained if certain practices used to reduce the risk of presenting FMD infected animals for slaughter were combined with key slaughter and processing procedures.
To be fair, Brazil has shipped fresh beef to other countries in the world, mostly European Union countries and, to this point, no one has tied any FMD outbreak to that source. The OIE report attributes this mainly to proper slaughter procedures and to a very low percentage of cattle being slaughtered while infected with FMD. But there is no way to quantify the risk because there is no data on how many infected animals have been slaughtered and shipped.
FMD vaccination entails its own problems. The OIE report shows recommendations for twice a year vaccination, the necessity of matching which of the seven serotypes and 60 strains one needs to vaccinate for, less than 100 percent vaccination rates and possible less than optimal vaccination due to possible potency problems, short or long periods before challenge or single doses. Brazil does not regularly vaccinate pigs.
The USDA proposed rule has two gaping holes. While Brazil surveys and monitors strains of the virus active in the “export” states of Brazil, it does not do so in the non-export area states and it does not do so in the surrounding countries, some with “FMD-free with vaccination” ratings and some classified as unknown risks. This is critical because there is no cross protection among different serotypes and variable cross protection among strains. The other blunder – the OIE recommendation is a three-week quarantine period for all animals to be slaughtered for export to allow for most of any infected animals to show signs and eliminate the group for eligibility. Even the quarantine is not failsafe, as occasional animals show no visible symptoms. In the absence of a quarantine requirement, USDA does not discuss a blood test component.
Bottom line: do we want to swap nearly no risk for “low risk”?
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Steve Dittmer, a veteran in agricultural policy and commentator.
*Qualitative Assessment of the Commodity Risk Factor for Spread of Foot-and-mouth Disease Associated with International Trade in Deboned Beef, " OIE ad hoc Group on
- See more at: http://www.cattlenetwork.com/e-newsletters/drovers-daily/USDAs-Proposed-Rule-for-Brazil-Lacks-Science-and-Sense-257517061.html?view=all#sthash.f43eArcC.dpuf

USDA and Interior Department Green Light Conservation Practices for Farmers, Ranchers and Landowners in Five Lesser Prairie-Chicken States

05/02/2014 11:02 AM EDT

 

Release 0077.14

 

 

USDA and Interior Department Green Light Conservation Practices for Farmers, Ranchers and Landowners in Five Lesser Prairie-Chicken States

WASHINGTON, May 2, 2014 — The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of the Interior today announced that farmers, ranchers and landowners implementing Farm Service Agency (FSA) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) practices intended to protect and increase lesser prairie-chicken populations will not be subject to additional regulations as a result of the species' listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that last year, the range-wide population of the lesser prairie-chicken declined to a record low of 17,616 birds, an almost 50 percent reduction from the 2012 population estimate. Producers participating in CRP in lesser prairie-chicken states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico) are planting native grasses and vegetation that will enhance nesting and brooding habitats, and taking other steps to help restore the declining lesser prairie-chicken population. Today's announcement provides that producers who voluntarily engage in practices to protect the lesser prairie-chicken will not be subject to additional regulations related to protecting the species.

"USDA's partnerships with farmers, ranchers, producers and landowners in voluntary initiatives like the Conservation Reserve Program are critically important and are yielding real results," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "Today's announcement gives producers who remain engaged in responsible conservation plans the certainty that they are in compliance with the new listing of the lesser prairie-chicken."

"We applaud USDA for their commitment to provide incentives for voluntary conservation," said Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. "With the majority of the lesser prairie-chicken's habitat on private lands, we all need to work together to ensure the conservation of the species and the economic well-being of ranchers and farmers across the species' range."

FSA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked together to develop a Biological Opinion to ensure CRP compliance with Endangered Species Act provisions. This Biological Opinion gives predictability to CRP participants who voluntarily apply protective conservation practices for the lesser prairie-chicken so additional regulations may be unnecessary in the future. This gives agricultural producers using proactive conservation practices confidence that they can maintain traditional farming and ranching activities.

The final rule for listing the lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened species and the special rule limiting regulatory impacts on landowners and businesses because of this listing will be effective May 12, 2014. Visit www.fws.gov/southwest/es/LPC.html to learn more about the threatened lesser prairie-chicken.

CRP participants and prospective participants should consult their local FSA officials and seek advice from USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service in developing conservation compliance plans. Visit the FSA office at the local USDA Service Center, or go to www.fsa.usda.gov for more information.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service works with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Visit www.fws.gov to learn more.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users).

Strategies to stamp out stable flies

Agricultural Research Service | Updated: 04/30/2014
Drovers Network

Filth flies are a pain, especially stable flies that will travel several miles just to bite livestock, pets and people. They often attack the ankles and lower legs, inflicting sharp, stabbing bites.
For cattle producers, these attacks can be costly, resulting in lower milk production in dairy cows, less weight gain in beef cattle, and reduced feed efficiency.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists are developing improved methods to locate stable fly habitats, finding easier and more efficient ways to control them, and using innovative techniques to stop flies from reproducing.
Staking Out Sites
In the past, stable flies have mainly been associated with stables and barnyards, but over the past three decades, they've become a significant pest in pastures as well and are now the most damaging arthropod pest of U.S. cattle.
Large bales of hay, placed in fields and used as supplemental cattle feed, are partly to blame. Scientists at the ARS Agroecosystem Management Research Unit (AMRU) in Lincoln, Neb., determined that hay-feeding sites are the primary sources of peak fly populations during summer months in the state.
The accumulation of wasted hay, manure and urine at these feeding sites creates an ideal habitat in the pasture for stable fly larval development, says AMRU entomologist David Taylor. For 100 years, the primary method used to control stable flies has been to clean up sites where they dwell. However, infested hay-feeding sites are often in remote locations.
"Producers need to know if the time it takes to clean up a site is worth their time and expense," Taylor says. "We developed a model to assess the economic impact of stable flies and to provide a cost-benefit analysis to producers."
The model was based on four classes of production: dairy; cow/calf; pastured and range stocker; and animals on feed. The analysis showed that stable flies cost the U.S. cattle industry more than $2.4 billion each year.
Preventing Flies from Growing
Insecticides used to control flies at hay-feeding sites usually wear off in two or three days, according to Taylor. An insect growth regulator that prevents stable flies from developing can be more effective.
Taylor and his team used a commercial product called cyromazine to control immature stable flies. The product, which has been used to manage other species of flies, inhibits flies from developing into adults.
In the study, one application of granular cyromazine sprinkled on a hay-feeding site reduced the number of adult stable flies emerging by 97 percent. Treatments took only 10 minutes, cost $10 per site, and remained effective for two to five months.
"We wanted to develop a method where the producer could apply a single treatment and be done," Taylor says. "They can quickly treat sites while doing other chores or checking on cattle."
Luring Flies to Drive Them Away
Another technique for controlling stable flies involves identifying natural compounds that drive them away and developing attractants to lure them into traps.
AMRU entomologist Jerry Zhu calls this his "push and pull" strategy. The "push" forces stable and other filth flies away from host animals, and the "pull" entices flies into traps—baited with low-toxic insecticides, sticky substances or a combination—to kill them.
Zhu is experimenting with plant-based chemicals like catnip to drive filth flies away from livestock.
"Catnip oil and its active compounds—nepetalactones—are powerful repellents against stable flies," Zhu says. "To date, it's probably the best repellent identified for flies that bite. It's also good at reducing larval development."
Several sprayable catnip oil formulations that decrease stable fly field populations have been developed by Zhu and his colleagues. They have also worked with Microtek Laboratories, Inc. of Dayton, Ohio, to test a new granular catnip product that prevents flies from laying eggs.
Killing Flies with a Virus
At the ARS Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology (CMAVE) in Gainesville, Fla., scientists have found that a potential biological control agent—salivary gland hypertrophy virus (SGHV)—that's been experimentally successful in controlling house flies also kills stable flies.
Collaborating with scientists at the University of Florida and Denmark's Aarhus University, entomologist Chris Geden in the Mosquito and Fly Research Unit at CMAVE studied the distribution and host range of the virus, and the effectiveness of different SGHV application methods.
SGHV is one of three viruses known to occur in pests they infect, Geden says. The virus replicates in the salivary gland and multiplies in female flies. The salivary glands increase in size, while ovaries remain small. Female flies infected with the virus never produce eggs again, and male flies do not mate.
Healthy house flies are believed to contract the virus after feeding on contaminated food particles left by infected flies. The virus, which was successful at stunting the growth of house flies, also severely affected stable flies in an experiment.
"When we injected stable flies, not only did they become infected, but they died very quickly. Of those that didn't die, many did not have developed ovaries," Geden says. "Also, infected stable flies produced 50 percent to 75 percent less feces, suggesting that they weren't feeding on blood or biting as often as healthy flies."
Stable flies that had the virus did not lay eggs, did not bite as much and had a significantly shorter lifespan than uninfected pests, Geden says.

EHV-1 outbreak: Protect your ranch horses

Laura Mushrush, Assistant Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 04/30/2014

A recent string of equine herpesvirus type-1 (EHV-1) has horse owners on edge trying to prevent the infection of the highly contagious virus in their herds.
According to the UC Davis Veterinary Medicine Center for Equine Health, the virus has two forms. One form causes neurological symptoms and respiratory infection (type-1), and the other aborts pregnancies in mares.
“Horses with neurological disease caused by EHV-1 infection can soon become uncoordinated and weak and have trouble standing. Difficulty urinating and defecating may also occur,” says UC Davis. “Often the rear limbs are more severely affected than the front. Signs of brain dysfunction may occur as well, including extreme lethargy and a coma-like state.”
Other symptoms include elevated fever of 120 ͦ Fahrenheit or greater, nasal discharge, cough and in some cases, reddish mucous membranes.
In the last month, numerous cases of the virus have been confirmed in states including Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and most recently, Kansas.
The Kansas horse has since been euthanized. A Kansas Department of Agriculture press release says the horse was at a barrel racing even in Lincoln, Neb., April 10-13. Another horse from Wisconsin at the same event was also confirmed infected.
Whether a horse owner is going to a neighbor’s branding or a ranch rodeo, extra precaution should be taken when horses come into contact to other horses that may have been exposed to the virus.
EHV-1 can be spread from contaminated caregivers who have the virus on their hands, vehicles and other inanimate objects. It can also be contracted through airborne transmission and horse-to-horse contact.
For more information on EHV-1, click here.