Is the cattle cycle back?

by Harlan Hughes in Market Advisor RSS
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.

Related Media

Cattle prices move higher across the board

• Is profit possible right now for feeders? Unfortunately, no
• Planning from the cattle cycle’s front end

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:

• 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.

Bringing home the bacon – I’m a cancer survivor with meat on the menu

Great article!

Drover's Cattle Network

By Dr. Jude Capper October 27, 2015 | 10:14 am EDT

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.

How to let your cattle pump their own water

Beef Online Magazine

Oct 12, 2015 By Heather Smith Thomas 

 

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.

“Like the old-fashioned hand pump, we have a 3-inch cylinder down inside the well. This is how we made this pump frost-free; we capture enough geothermal heat from the ground, and contain that heat all the way up to the surface, to keep the water in the pipe from freezing,” he says.

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.

Related

 

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.

“The water is always fresh and clean, compared to a pond. It doesn’t take cattle very long to figure it out. You just fill the pan, so they know where the water is. With my first group of cows, I just pushed the lever and filled it and walked away, and when I came back one cow had figured it out and was showing the rest how to do it. Anderson recommends that you always leave one cow there that knows how to use it, whenever you put in a new group. I’ve never worried about that. They smell the water and know it’s there, and figure it out very quickly,” says Panter.

“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.      

A Lesson from Cow Number 301

By Laura Mushrush, Assistant Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork September 30, 2015 | 11:04 am EDT                   

A snapshot of the lead photo for the October issue of Consumer Reports.

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.
 

 

Non-Farmers own most of U.S. Rented Farmland

I realize I haven't posted much lately, but I found this article and wanted to share it.

Progressive Forage Grower Online
Written by Progressive Forage Grower Editor Lynn Jaynes Published on 07 Sep 2015


Non-farming landlords, according to a recently released 2014 survey, own 80 percent of U.S. rented farmland. The report states, “In 2014, all of the landlords combined received $31.2 billion in rental income while incurring $9.2 billion in total expenses.”
The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service released results of the survey and listed holdings of rented farmland acres with buildings, which reached a total value of more than $1.1 trillion.
The average age of landlords is 66.5 years old. Principal landlords who are under 55 years old constitute only 18 percent. Nearly 45 percent of all principal landlords have never farmed.
The report also stated one-tenth of the 911 million U.S. farmland acres (outside of Alaska and Hawaii) has planned ownership transfer in the next five years. This figure does not include farmland that is included or expected to be included in wills. At least 21 million acres are expected to be sold to a non-relative. The report also said increasing numbers of families are creating trust ownerships to make sure land remains in the family for farming or as an investment.
The full report can be found at the USDA Census of Agriculture website.  FG

NMSU Extension Yard & Garden

Q.   Weeds!!!  I have more weeds in my garden than I can remember ever having before.  I guess it is because this year we had so much early rain. Can you give me any advice to make help me get rid of the weeds more easily?  I prefer to not use chemicals.

 

 

A.   Getting rid of weeds is not a realistic prospect, managing them to minimize their negative impacts can be done.  In managing weeds, persistence is a critical weapon in your arsenal.  Weeds quickly get out of hand if you do not deal with weeds on a regular basis, whether your approach is to use cultural or chemical weed management practices.  The moisture that some of New Mexico had during May and June has resulted in earlier and more abundant growth of weeds.

     Cultural weed management practices include a number of things.  Irrigation methods that localize moisture will help reduce weed growth during periods between rains.  Mulch can also help reduce weeds and make them easier to remove.  Use of low-growing, spreading groundcover plants can serve as living mulch with the same effect.  Frequent removal of weeds manually is also important.

     Irrigation by drip irrigation, olla irrigation, or other means that directs water to limited areas where it most benefits desired plants conserves water and weakens weeds that try to grow elsewhere on rain water alone.  Without supplemental water, weeds will grow more slowly and give you more time to remove them.  It is easier to remove weeds from most soil, so whenever possible remove these weeds soon after a rain.  In areas of irrigation, frequent weed management will be necessary. 

     In areas away from irrigation a scuffle hoe is a useful tool.  A scuffle hoe is one that cuts weeds just at or just below the soil line.  In the case of annual weeds this removes the weed and by minimizing soil disturbance reduces new weed seed germination.  If the weeds are perennial weeds they will grow back from their roots, but frequent cutting with the scuffle hoe will weaken the weeds to the point that they grow back very slowly or not at all.  Chopping the soil with a traditional hoe or digging with a shovel disturbs the soil and brings new weed seeds to the surface where they can germinate.  Weed seeds buried deeply in the soil may remain alive for many years, but do not grow until they are near the surface and receive sunlight.

     Mulch helps reduce weeds by reducing the light at the surface of the soil and inhibiting weed seed germination.  Perennial weeds may come through the mulch, but because the mulch conserves moisture in the soil, the mulch can make it easier to pull the weeds.  Some scuffle hoes can work through a layer of mulch and may be employed to remove weeds growing in mulch.  The choice of organic mulch (wood chips, straw, or bark) or inorganic mulch (crusher fines, gravel, cobbles, and such) depends on the plants in the landscape and garden.  Some can tolerate the heat that inorganic mulch accumulates, but others need the organic mulches that do not generate as much heat from our plentiful New Mexico summer sunshine.

     Understanding which weeds you have growing in your garden and landscape is important in managing the weeds.  I referred to annual and perennial weeds and mentioned some of their characteristics.  The annual weeds (puncture vine/goatheads, pig weed, purslane, mustard weeds, spurge, some grasses, and many others) must grow from seeds each year.  Some germinate in the fall and survive the winter, some germinate in late winter, and some do not begin growing until the soil warms in late spring.  If you prevent them from forming seeds you can reduce the potential weed problems for the next year.  However, since weeds seeds can persist in the soil many years before germinating, they will continue to reappear, but you can begin to reduce their presence by your persistence.  Perennial weeds (silverleaf nightshade, globe mallow, bindweed, and others) grow from seeds as well, but they also are able to regrow from buds on their root systems.  Pulling newly germinated perennial weeds before they can establish their perennial root system helps reduce the problem.  As they regrow from established root systems, frequent removal of the tops will help diminish the food reserves in the roots and weaken the weeds over time.  As they become weaker, they become easier to manage.

 

 

 

 

Send your gardening questions to Yard and Garden, Attn: Dr. Curtis Smith, NMSU Agricultural Science Center, 1036 Miller Rd. SW, Los Lunas, NM 87031. You may also send to cwsmith@nmsu.edu or leave a message at https://www.facebook.com/NMSUExtExpStnPubs.  Curtis W. Smith, Ph.D., is an Extension Horticulture Specialist, retired from New Mexico State University’s Cooperative Extension Service.  NMSU and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating.

 

2015 Pesticide Disposal Program

Since NMDA started a pesticide disposal program over 8 years ago, thousands of pounds of unwanted chemicals have been collected and disposed of safely. Disposing of canceled, banned or unwanted agricultural and commercial pesticides poses a significant challenge to agricultural producers and other pesticide users due to its high cost, but proper disposal eliminates a potential threat to health and the environment.
NMDA’s program provides free, safe disposal of unwanted pesticides to agricultural producers, pesticide dealers, pest control firms, golf courses, government agencies, and homeowners. Annual fees paid by manufacturers and distributors to register their pesticides in New Mexico cover all costs. NMDA rotates collections around the state, holding events in different communities each year to reach New Mexicans in all geographical areas.

How To Participate

Only pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, weed-and-feed products, etc.) are eligible to be disposed of under this program. After you’ve gathered your unwanted pesticides, try to identify any which do not have a legible label. Place any leaky or broken bags or containers in a containment bag or drum liner so they will not contaminate your vehicle. You must get them safely to the collection site so make sure your load is secure and will not shift during transport.
At the collection site trained and equipped personnel will unload your vehicle, re-package your pesticides, and load them on their trucks for transport to an approved hazardous waste disposal site. No personal information will be collected but you will be asked to fill out a brief, anonymous survey as a condition of your participation.
If you have questions please call Irene King at 575-646-2133.

Safety Precautions

§ Don’t eat, drink or smoke while handling pesticides!

§ Wear appropriate protective gear when handling pesticides, especially any broken or fragile containers.

§ If possible, identify any pesticides whose labels are not clear with a sticky label, marker or similar.

§ Leaking or broken packages, whether dry or liquid, should be placed in a sturdy plastic bag, 5-gallon bucket, plastic bin, drum or other container that will contain any leaks.

§ Brace or tie down items in your truck or in the trunk of your car to prevent shifting while en route.

§ Drive directly to the collection site after your pesticides are securely loaded. Drive carefully, please! You are responsible for any spills and clean up on your way to the collection site.

§ Please stay clear during unloading to ensure your safety as well as that of the workers on site.

 

2015 Disposal Events

Portales – August 3  8:00 AM – 3:00 PM
Roosevelt County Fairgrounds
705 East Lime Street

Artesia – August 6  8:00 AM – 3:00  PM
Eddy County Fairgrounds
3402 South 13th Street

Las Cruces – August 10 8:00 AM – 3:00 PM
Performance Agriculture
1946 Anthony Drive, Anthony, NM

Albuquerque – August 13  8:00 AM – 3:00 PM
Bernalillo County Extension Office
1510 Menaul Blvd NW

Is agriculture the bad boy in the nation’s water use?

Wes Ishmael                                                                                                                      Jun 8, 2015
BEEF Magazine

As the drought in California and Nevada continues unabated, attention on water use in the general media is heating up as well. And, on occasion, that attention blames agriculture for wasting precious water resources.
So which industries use the most water? While data can be incomplete and sometimes a little dated, here’s a rundown on major water uses in America.
Americans used 355 billion gallons of water per day for all uses in 2010, according to the “Estimated Use of Water in the U.S. 2010” circular from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
That was 13% less than in 2005 and the least since 1970.
Of those 355 billion gallons per day, freshwater withdrawals were 306 billion gallons per day, or 86% of the total. Of total freshwater withdrawals, 75% was from surface water (230 billion gallons per day) and 25% from groundwater (76 billion gallons per day).

Related

3 talking points to explain agriculture’s water usage
Water issues intensify; will the livestock industry be left in the dust?

The Estimated Use of Water circular is the 13^th in an ongoing USGS series published every five years since 1950—the longest compilation record of water use data by a federal agency in the U.S. It’s also one of the few sources of information about regional and national trends in water withdrawals.
According to the report, thermoelectric power and irrigation remained the two largest water users in 2010. And that puts agriculture squarely in the crosshairs as the national debate over water use heats up. Here’s a look at the industries that are the major water users in the U.S.:

Thermoelectric power uses 161 billion gallons per day

Thermoelectric power accounted for 161 billion gallons per day in 2010—99% of it from surface water; 73% of that freshwater. It amounted to 45% of total water withdrawals for all uses; 38% of freshwater withdrawals for all uses. Withdrawals for thermoelectric power were 20% less than in 2005.
That 161 billion gallons of water used for thermoelectric power accounted for 45% of total water withdrawals, but was about 20% less than in 2005. Reasons for the decline include thermoelectric plant closures, decreased use of coal (more natural gas) and more efficient cooling technology.

Irrigation accounts for 115 billions gallons per day

Irrigation accounted for 115 billion gallons per day in 2010 or 129,000 acre feet per year, the lowest level since before 1965. Keep in mind, this was in 2010, at the headwaters of the massive drought that continues to hamstring large pockets of the nation.
Of total freshwater withdrawals, irrigation accounts for 65%, primarily in California, Arkansas, Texas and Nebraska. Cumulatively, these four states account for 42% of total national groundwater withdrawals for irrigation. Nearly all groundwater withdrawals for irrigation (96%) are freshwater.
Irrigation accounted for 38% of total freshwater withdrawals or 61% of total freshwater withdrawals, excluding those for thermoelectric power.
Of irrigation withdrawals, 65.9 billion gallons per day were from surface water, accounting for 57% of irrigation withdrawals. That was almost 12% less than in 2005. Reasons cited for declining use was more water-efficient irrigation—more sprinklers and less flood irrigation.
Groundwater withdrawals for irrigation were 49.5 billion gallons per day, which was 6% less than in 2005. About 62.4 million acres were irrigated in 2010—950,000 acres more (1.5%) than in 2005.

Mining withdrawals make up 1% of total withdrawals

Mining withdrawals were about 1% of total withdrawals, but were 3% of all withdrawals excluding thermoelectric power.
Groundwater was the source of 73% of the mining withdrawals (71% of that saline); 80% of the surface water used by mining was freshwater.
Total mining withdrawals in 2010 were 39% more than in 2005. Groundwater withdrawals were 54% more than in 2005; surface water withdrawals were 9% more.

Public water supply use is 42 billions gallons per day

Public water supply withdrawals in 2010 of 42 billion gallons per day were 5% less than in 2005 and represented the first decline in public withdrawals since the five-year reporting began in 1950.
Public supply withdrawals in 2010 accounted for 14% of total freshwater withdrawals for all uses and 22% of the withdrawals excluding thermoelectric power. In 2010, 268 million of the U.S. population (approx. 86%) received potable water from the public supply—unchanged since 2005.
An estimated 44.5 million people in the U.S. provided their own water for domestic use in 2010, about 1% of total withdrawals for all uses in 2010—98% of that 1% was freshwater.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey

Livestock antibiotic label changes eliminate over-the-counter availability

By Craig Payne, University of Missouri Extension June 09, 2015 | 11:43 am EDT
Drover's Cattle Network

The Food and Drug Administration released the final rule of the Veterinary Feed Directive on June 2. According to the FDA, this rule is part of an overall strategy to ensure judicious use of feed-grade and water-soluble antibiotics in food-producing animals.
“The issue surrounding the use of these antibiotics began several years ago,” said Craig Payne, director of Veterinary Extension and Continuing Education at the University of Missouri.
Payne said the FDA established two primary goals. One was to phase out the use of feed-grade and water-soluble antibiotics for production purposes such as improved feed efficiency. The other goal was to move away from over-the-counter availability of antibiotics to more veterinary oversight.
The FDA provided guidance for animal health companies on how to make labeling changes. Payne said all companies agreed to make the necessary changes by December 2016.
Payne says the biggest difference for producers will be the move from over the counter availability to veterinary supervision. This means producers will need to have a prescription from their veterinarian before they can obtain these antibiotics in the future.
Payne said the prescription for a feed-grade antibiotic is called a Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) and for water-soluble antibiotics it’s called a prescription. In either case, he said a Veterinarian-Client-Patient Relationship (VCPR) must be in place before the veterinarian can legally issue a VFD or prescription. In other words, the producer and veterinarian need to have a working relationship, and the veterinarian must be familiar with the animals on the operation.
Although the changes won’t take full effect until December 2016, Payne encourages producers to begin discussing these changes with their veterinarian. Payne mentioned that extension, the FDA and other groups will also help educate producers about these changes.
“Just keep your eyes and ears open for any opportunity to get additional education on this issue,” Payne said.
To view the FDA fact sheet regarding the final rule, visithttp://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ucm449019.htm.

Topics:

Increasing income from calves sold at your local livestock market

By Doug Mayo, University of Florida Extension May 29, 2015 | 1:59 pm EDT
Drover's Cattle Network

While cattle producers have always worked hard to minimize input costs of their operation, there are also management practices that can increase the income from calves sold at your local livestock market. The weight and quality of calves can make a significant difference in the price buyers are willing to pay for your calves. There are several factors that affect the value of a calf: age, nutrition, management, and genetics. Since the genetics of calves is influenced by the quality of the parents, this article will focus on tips for managing calves currently on the ranch.

Age

Based on USDA AL Weekly Market Report MG LS145

Calf age is the simplest method to manage the value of calves sold. As a general rule, older calves weigh more. If a local producer had sold a fall born steer calf that weighed 300 pounds in April 2014, it would have sold for around $ 2.60 per pound for a total of $ 780. However if you had kept this calf on the cow, with an average daily gain of 1.75 lbs/day, it would have weighed 500 pounds in early August, and would have sold for $ 2.44 per pound for a total of $ 1,200. Granted last year’s calf prices were somewhat unusual. Normally cattle prices are at their peak for the year in the spring, but drop some and then hold fairly strong through the summer months. The question to consider then is, can you add 200 pounds to a calf for less than $ 440? Since the bulk of this gain takes place when pastures are in peak production, it normally does pay to wait and sell older calves later in the summer.

Nutrition

The next factor that affects a calf’s weight is nutrition. High quality grazing helps the cow produce more milk, but is also a large part of the diet of older calves. Pasture grasses are of the highest quality of the year in spring and early summer, especially when they have been fertilized. Later in the summer forage quality starts to decline, so older calves benefit from protein supplementation. This practice, commonly called creep feeding, can provide a boost to weaning weights. Dr. Bill Kunkle and several county agents did a research study of calves on seven Florida Ranches that showed the value of creep feeding. The goal of the study was to provide calves one pound/head/day of cottonseed meal (CSM) the last 60 days prior to weaning. They utilized salt to limit consumption in creep feeders (92% CSM, 8% salt). Over the six years of the study, the calves consumed an average of only 0.64 lbs of cottonseed meal/head/day and gained an extra 0.27 lbs per day more than calves that did not creep feed. In summary, creep fed calves gained an extra 16 pounds from eating 38 pounds of cottonseed meal. At the current rate of $ 300 ton for cottonseed meal or $ 0.15 per pound you could add 16 pounds to each calf for less than $ 6 per calf in creep feed.

Management

Cattlemen have four management tools that can add value to the calves they sell: castration, implants, deworming, and minimizing shrinkage. Bull calves will be castrated before entering feedyards. The older bulls are at castration the higher the stress and the greater the risk of infection, so buyers discount bull calves when they purchase them. A simple comparison from last week’s market report shows the actual discounts that occurred. Certainly with such a small sample other factors may have created price variation, but in general, buyers paid 4-11¢ less per pound for #1 bull calves as compared to steers. The discount can fluctuate depending on the quantity of calves being sold each week, and the current demand for feeder calves. However, avoiding a $ 40 discount by selling 500 pound steer calves instead of bulls adds more income than the added labor costs of castration.

Price variations may include other differences than just castration. Source:http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/mg_ls795.txt

Growth implants can add 15-20 pounds of extra weight at weaning for around $ 1.30 per implant. In today’s market, that provides a return of $ 31 for every $ 1 spent on implants. They do, however, need to be used correctly. A study of 7 feedlots with over 2,500 head found that almost 1/3 of the implants were not being used correctly. In this study the main problem was that the ear got infected. In some cases the implant was not properly inserted in the ear. Once the work crews were re-trained, there was less than 10% that had problems. The point is to make sure the implants go in clean and in the right location. One implant given to calves at 3-4 months of age can add 17 extra pounds at weaning.
Controlling internal parasites, particularly stomach worms, can also add weight to calves at weaning. A University of Florida study of 537 head in three locations, showed that de-worming calves provided a $ 6 return for every dollar invested. De-worming added 8.7 pounds to each calf over a 90 day period.
The other management tool, often overlooked, is shrinkage (aka shrink) or weight loss due to stress. Calves start losing weight as soon as they are separated from their mothers, so the quicker they get from the pasture to the scale at the auction the better. Calves lose 1% of their body weight per hour for the first four hours, and then 1/4% per hour for the next 8-10 hours. Unlike cull cows and bulls that will eat hay at the market the night before a sale, weaned calves will simply ball, pace, and loose weight. A study in North Dakota shows the difference in heifer calves that were weaned and sold the day of the sale, versus those weaned the day before the sale, and sold the following day.
Using the same market information as our earlier example from last August, those heifers would have sold for $ 2.20/pound. So, the heifers weaned and sold the day of the sale would have been worth $ 31 more than those weaned and sold the next day. The only difference was the stress and time delay between weaning and the point the calves were weighed before sale. Stress makes cattle lose weight, so anything producers can do to reduce delays before selling, overcrowding on a trailer, limited access to water, rough handling, and working in the heat of the day, can reduce shrinkage before calves are sold.

Summary

The weight and quality of each calf dictates their market value. Selling older calves, castrated steers, creep feeding, deworming and implanting, and managing shrinkage will provide additional income from each weaned calf sold through the market.

Understanding wet hay

By Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University ExtensionMay 26, 2015 | 4:12 pm EDT
Drover's Cattle Network
After several years of drought, rain in Oklahoma is allowing cool season forages to grow in abundance. Harvesting and baling cool season crops such as fescue and wheat hay is a challenge during a wet spring. The timing of the rains can make it difficult for cattlemen that are trying hard to put quality hay in the bale for next winter’s feed supply. All producers that harvest hay occasionally will put up hay that “gets wet” from time to time. Therefore, ranchers and hay farmers need to understand the impact of “wet hay” in the tightly wound bales.
Extra moisture in hay can cause heat inside the hay bale or hay stack. Heat produced by the bale comes from two sources: First) biochemical reactions from plants themselves as hay cures. (This heating is minor and rarely causes the hay temperature to exceed 110 degrees F. Very little if any damage occurs if the hay never exceeds 110 F.); Second) Most heat in hay is caused by the metabolic activity of microorganisms. They exist in all hay and thrive when extra moisture is abundant. When the activity of these microbes increases, hay temperature rises. Hay with a little extra moisture may not exceed 120 degrees F., whereas, wetter hay can quickly exceed 150 degrees. If the hay rises above 170 degrees, chemical reactions can begin to occur that produce enough heat to quickly raise the temperature above 400 degrees and the wet hay can begin to burn and cause fires. Be wary of the fire danger of wet hay and store it away from buildings and other “good” hay just in case this would occur.
Heat damage causes hay to be less digestible, especially the protein. Heat damaged hay often turns a brownish color and has a caramel odor. Cattle often readily eat this hay, but because of the heat damage, its nutritional value might be quite low. Some ranchers have reported that “the cows ate the hay like there was no tomorrow, but they did very poorly on the hay”.
Testing wet hay may be very important. Determining the internal temperature of large bales or stacks of hay should be done carefully. Make certain that checking the temperature in suspicious hay is done safely. Read the E-Extension Fact Sheet “Preventing Fires in Baled Hay and Straw.”
Testing the protein and energy content of stored wet hay will allow for more appropriate supplementation next winter when that hay is fed. Moldy hay could be a source of mycotoxins that could present several health problems for cattle. Many animal disease diagnostic laboratories can examine feedstuffs for mycotoxins or can recommend laboratories that do such testing.

The Incentive for Feeding Cattle Longer

Written by Larry CorahPublished on 06 May 2015
Progressive Cattleman

Some trends in the cattle industry we can predict, but others surprise us – like the magnitude of the upswing in cattle prices over the past few years. But when grain prices slumped in 2014 and cattle prices headed still higher, it shouldn’t have surprised anyone that we started adding days on feed (DOF) to feedlot cattle.
Just how many days have we added, and what has been the impact?
Noted cattle analyst Shawn Walter of Professional Cattle Consultants plots this data monthly from the millions of cattle fed by his extensive network of cooperators. According to his recent feedlot newsletter, the longer DOF trend began last July. We added five to 10 days in July and August, and by the first quarter of 2015, we had extended that by another 15 to 20 days.
You would logically expect to see a link to lighter placement weights, but it’s not there. We are placing heavier cattle on feed, and more than 30 percent of the 2014 placements exceeded 800 pounds.
As Walter notes, with fed cattle prices in the $1.50 to $1.60 per hundredweight (cwt) range and the cost of gains being around $.90 per cwt, the economic incentive says add as many pounds as possible. What makes this work even better is that 75 percent or more of those late pounds is in carcass weight, which is more profitable on the formulas and grids that account for most fed cattle marketing today.
As you would expect, this has driven carcass weights to all-new heights, with steers up 14 pounds and heifers 12 pounds for the year.
What are other impacts of adding days? Well, here are some things you likely did not know about longer feeding periods.
Our Certified Angus Beef feedlot database shows that for every 20 days that cattle are on feed, the percentage of choice and prime carcasses increases 3 to 4 points. Most of that is choice, but for a premium brand such as Certified Angus Beef, the increase in acceptance rates is 2 to 3 percentage points.
At the 2015 Plains Nutrition Conference, University of Nebraska animal scientists presented an abstract on the impact of longer DOF on carcass parameters and profitability. Good data on this was hard to find until now, so this is a valuable research contribution.

They allotted 114 crossbred steers to three feeding pens. One group was harvested at a normal finish end point of a half-inch fat cover, which turned out to be 142 DOF. A second group was fed another 21 days (163 DOF) and a third group 43 extra days (184 DOF).
The key economic impact (see Table 1) was the increased carcass weight, up 31 pounds and 80 pounds, respectively, for the two longer-fed cattle groups. Perhaps surprisingly, quality grade increased only slightly as marbling was 31 points higher for the longest-fed cattle. But keep in mind individual genetic potential plays a big role in grade as well, and that boost in marbling suggests a bigger impact on the share of cattle grading prime and premium choice.
As would be expected, yield grades (YG) were elevated, up to 31.6 percent YG 4s and 5s for the long-fed group. But in spite of that, profitability was significantly higher for the longest-fed cattle – by more than $50 per head after all added costs and discounts were figured in.


Larry Corah
Consultant
Certified Angus Beef LLC

Proper injection sites to remember at calf-working time

By Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University ExtensionMay 05, 2015 | 1:52 pm EDT

The month of May is traditionally the time when “spring round-ups” take place. This is the time that large and small cow/calf operations schedule the “working” of the calves. As the majority of the calves reach their second month of life, it is time to castrate the male calves and immunize all of the calves to protect them against blackleg. Also the new information suggests that in some situations, calves may be vaccinated for the respiratory diseases, i.e. IBR and BVD. Check with your veterinarian for vaccination advice.
Correct administration of any injection is a critical control point in beef production and animal health. There is a negative relationship between meat tenderness and injection sites, including injection sites that have no visible lesion. In fact, intramuscular (IM) injections, regardless of the product injected, may create permanent damage regardless of the age of the animal at the time of injection. Tenderness is reduced in a three-inch area surrounding the injection site. Moving the injection-site area to the neck stops damage to expensive steak cuts. Therefore, cow/calf producers should make certain that their family members, and other hired labor are sufficiently trained as to the proper location of the injections before the spring calf-working begins.
Give injections according to label instructions. Subcutaneous (SQ) means under the skin, intramuscular (IM) means in the muscle. Some vaccines (according to the label instructions) allow the choice between intramuscular (IM) and subcutaneous (SQ). Always use subcutaneous (SQ) as the method of administration when permitted by the product’s label. Remember to “tent” the skin for SQ injections unless instructed otherwise by the manufacturer. Proper injection technique is just one of many components of the Beef Quality Assurance effort that has had a positive impact on the entire United States beef industry.
Another important aspect of the Beef Quality Assurance effort is keeping of accurate treatment records. Treatment records should include:

· Individual animal/group identification

· Date treated

· Product administered and manufacturer’s lot/serial number

· Dosage used

· Route and location of administration

· Earliest date animal(s) will have cleared withdrawal period

· Name of person administering the product

Treatment records for cattle should be stored and kept for a minimum of three years after the animal(s) have been sold from your operation. Beef producers are encouraged to learn and practice Beef Quality Assurance Guidelines. You can learn more about the Oklahoma Beef Quality Assurance program by going to the website: http://oklahomabeefquality.com/ The Oklahoma Beef Quality Assurance Manual can be downloaded from that site. Examples of treatment records to be kept and stored are available from the Oklahoma Beef Quality Assurance Manual or the Oklahoma Beef Quality Assurance program website.

Calfhood vaccination to prevent post-weaning BRD

By John Maday, Editor, Bovine VeterinarianApril 14, 2015 | 6:15 pm EDT
Drover's Cattle Network

During last week’s Academy of Veterinary Consultants conference, Phil Griebel, DVM, PhD, presented research results suggesting vaccinating newborn calves, using a modified live, intranasal vaccine, can provide protection against pathogens causing bovine respiratory disease later in life.
Griebel is a research fellow at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization and professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Saskatchewan. In his research, he studies the mucosal immune system in newborn calves. Over 70 percent of the cattle immune system, he says, is associated with epithelial cells on the surfaces of the respiratory, gastro-intestinal and reproductive system. And over 90 percent of pathogens, both respiratory and enteric, enter the animal’s system through mucosal surfaces.
Shortly after birth, the mucosal surfaces of newborn calves are rapidly colonized by a wide variety of commensal microbes, which affect the development of the mucosal immune system, Griebel says. This is especially true in the upper respiratory system, which is the first point of infection for pathogens entering through the nostrils.
Using an intranasal vaccine within the first four weeks of a calf’s life potentially can provide several benefits, Griebel says.

· Protection when cows were not properly vaccinated pre-calving.

· Protection in cases of sub-optimal transfer of maternal antibodies.

· Protection when immune status of the cow and calf are unknown.

· Protection in the face of an outbreak of respiratory or enteric disease among newborn calves.

· Enhanced immune protection while maternal antibodies wane as the calf ages. Griebel says the early vaccination can establish an immune memory that provides protection during the early post-weaning period, particularly when compared with vaccinating weaned calves upon arrival at backgrounding or feeding operations, when it takes the vaccine three to four weeks to provide protection.

Griebel also notes that immunoglobulin A (IgA) is the primary antibody secreted at the mucosal surface, and within a few days after a calf’s birth, most of the maternal IgA has been cleared from the respiratory mucosal surface, leaving little to interfere with activity of the vaccine.
Griebel outlined a pair of trials he conducted, one to compare immunity between calves receiving a modified-live, intra-nasal vaccine at branding time (three to six weeks of age) and non-vaccinated control calves, and another study to compare the effects of calfhood intranasal versus intra-muscular modified-live vaccines on immune memory.
In the first trial, researchers vaccinated one group of calves using the modified-live, intranasal vaccine and used a diluent (non-active fluid) intranasally on the control calves. Prior to weaning, they collected serum and selected 20 health calves from each group, which were shipped to the feedlot a week later. After a short receiving period, all the calves were challenged with aerosol containing bovine herpesvirus 1 (BHV-1), the virus associated with Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR), one of the common causes of BRD. At the same time, they segmented the two groups and vaccinated again with the intra-nasal vaccine. This created four groups: One group with no vaccination, one with two vaccinations, one with an early vaccination but no late vaccination and one with late but not early vaccination.
Results included:

· Control cattle lost 20 kg of body weight over the first seven days post-challenge, while the calves vaccinated twice maintained weight.

· The twice-vaccinated calves had significantly lower body temperatures than controls during the first seven days post-challenge.

· All calves were shedding virus by day three, but control calves continued to shed large volumes while the twice-vaccinated calves stopped shedding by day 12. Calves that received the neonatal vaccine but not the weaning vaccine were intermediate in shedding.

· Secondary bacterial infections caused some death loss in control calves but not in either of the vaccinated groups.

· A single intranasal vaccine at three to six weeks of age reduced BRD mortality but not clinical disease.

· Vaccinating early and again at weaning reduced clinical BRD incidence.

In the second trial, the researchers used a similar process except that at branding, they divided calves into six groups. Two received an intramuscular modified-live vaccine, two received an intramuscular killed vaccine, one received the intranasal modified-live vaccine and one group received a diluents.
In this trial, both of the modified-live vaccines helped reduce fever and reductions in gain during the post-challenge period, but the intranasal vaccine was the only one shown to induce sufficient immune memory to reduce the incidence of clinical disease.

Scientists dispute study on antibiotic residues in feedyard dust

By John Maday, Editor, Bovine VeterinarianApril 03, 2015 | 5:58 pm EDT
Drovers Cattlenework

In January, we covered a report from Texas Tech University’s Institute of Environmental and Human Health, outlining a study in which researchers detected antibiotic residues, bacteria and genetic material related to antibiotic resistance in particulate matter downwind of Texas feedyards.
The research paper, titled “Antibiotics, Bacteria, and Antibiotic Resistance Genes: Aerial Transport from Cattle Feed Yards via Particulate Matter,” was published in the Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives.
This week, Michael D. Apley, DVM, PhD at Kansas State University, Samuel E. Ives, DVM, PhD at West Texas A&M University and H. Morgan Scott, DVM, PhD at Texas A&M University released a white paper citing concerns over the conclusions listed in the Texas Tech report.
The three research veterinarians focused on issues of bacterial viability, likelihood of bacterial repopulation and the concentration of antimicrobials found in the feedyard particulates.
“In this paper, many inferences are presented as conclusions when in reality they are actually untested hypotheses,” they wrote. Contrary to much of the media representation of this research, the data do not indicate that there are any viable bacteria present in their samples. The likelihood of non-viable bacterial genes transforming into other living bacteria is of very low probability. The antimicrobial concentrations used in this study are not grounded in appropriate air and soil volume concentrations and do not accurately represent the dispersion and dilution of these agents in the environment.” In an interview published this week in the Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives, Dr. Ives says “qPCR techniques only reveal the presence of bacteria, not their viability. That doesn’t translate to transference to the environment and beyond.”
Read the full white paper from Drs. Apley, Ives and Scott.

Progress or Change

By Burke Teichert || Originally published in BEEF Magazine and at www.beefmagazine.com

In my lifelong learning, I’ve relied on many sources but the most meaningful help has come from two of them:

• Experts from the academic world who have the confidence of their peers and their students, have learned to work and communicate effectively with farmers and ranchers, and whose work addresses economically important questions.
• Farmers and ranchers who are possibility thinkers, pay attention to the science, learn from each other, want to know the truth and adopt practices and careful decisions that make them more profitable.

It is from this perspective (paying attention to the science and observing the practices of profitable commercial ranchers) that I make the following observations on cattle breeding and the way we select and cull.

• Years of observation suggest that the most profitable ranches have cow herds that are at, or just slightly above, average for most economically important traits. The most profitable herds also have lower-than-average milk production. Trying to push a herd beyond average for an environment usually comes with a cost in feed or stocking rate.
• There are many genetic antagonisms (unintended consequences) which can vary from almost imperceptible at first to fairly significant.
• We can make rapid genetic change, but it doesn’t always yield economic progress. Looking at the dairy industry as an example, we see that, if you select primarily for milk, you will get lots of milk. You will also get significant inbreeding as a result of extensive use of artificial insemination (AI) to closely related sires, poor fertility, poor survivability, many health issues and lots of cost. To a lesser extent, I think that focused selection in beef cattle for high growth and carcass grade has yielded some of the same effects.
• Please understand that EPDs and genomically enhanced EPDs work, but too many people have used EPDs as a tool to strive for “maximums.” Maximum is seldom, if ever, the most profitable course.

Improvement Carries a Cost

Most improvement in performance comes with a cost. Often, that cost is in the reduction of performance in another trait, a reduction in stocking rate, or higher feed costs, each of which can take several years to become obvious. We need to be sure the added revenue is greater than the added cost.

• The use of AI, embryo transfer and today’s genomically enhanced EPDs, without great care, can lead to a significant increase in inbreeding for the most popular breeds.
• If cell division to form egg and sperm happened for each gene pair individually, I would not have so much concern. But cells divide a chromosome at a time, which means that to get the good stuff on a particular chromosome, you will also have to take whatever else happens to be on that chromosome – the possible antagonisms.
• The relatively new study of “epigenetics” suggests that environmental factors may turn genes on or off. I think one might further suppose that environmental factors can reduce, enhance or even modify the effect of genes. Genes also have effects on each other – most of which are unknown and unmeasured. That’s just the way complex systems work.
• Many geneticists and a number of seedstock breeders are promoting the use of selection indices. The index becomes a composite of the “economically relevant traits.”

In putting the index together, each trait receives a weighting based on heritability and economic importance. From environment to environment, the relationship of heritability from trait to trait is seldom the same (though it may be close). The relative economic importance of each trait can also vary from place to place and from time to time. There is just enough skeptic in me (I call it being careful) to wonder if the economic weighting for each trait in the index was done correctly for my objectives.
Being a “systems thinker,” considering the forgoing observations and recognizing that the use of EPDs can move us toward or away from our profit objectives, I want to suggest the following combination of management and genetics as a method of herd improvement:

• Cull cows that aren’t doing what you want them to do. Don’t expect careful culling to be a big genetic trend changer. It won’t be. But, it will keep your herd cleaned up, functional and easy to manage. It will help you avoid keeping offspring from the poorest few. I have noticed that, when culling for unacceptable disposition or performance, you only have to remove a few each year to keep problems at a low level and to make life easier and much more enjoyable.
• Use low-cost development and a very short breeding season for yearling heifers, exposing significantly more than will be needed. If you start with heifers that can be developed at a low cost and get pregnant in less than 30 days, you will have better cows raising better calves and with better rebreeding rates. Naturally you will sort off the real misfits before breeding.

This is more management than genetics, but it will give much quicker bottom-line results. This is written from the perspective of one who produces his own replacement heifers. However, if your better alternative is to buy bred cows, you should try to find a producer who comes close to following these recommendations for your source of bred cows.
You must depend on your seedstock provider(s) to make most of the genetic changes you desire in your herd. I want my bull provider to:

• Judiciously use the genetic tools at his disposal.
• Produce and help me select bulls that will produce good mother cows – moderate in size and milk production, and that will work in my environment and with my management. He needs to be a low-cost, low input operator with his cowherd. Since I don’t pamper my cows, I don’t want him to pamper his. Sure, I want good steer calves, but I want mother cows first. A good mother will usually produce an acceptable steer and do it with low cost.
• Keep accurate individual records and report 100% of the records to his breed association. I don’t like the problems or inferior performance to be excluded from the records.
• Help me maintain a reasonable level of heterosis in my herd (somewhere between 65 and 80% of maximum or F1 heterosis). This means I will either need more than one seedstock supplier or the chosen supplier will be able to provide genetics from at least three breeds.
• Not follow popular fads without good justification.
• Be satisfied with slow, sustained, balanced progress. Many years of watching has shown that, when you try to move one trait too far or too fast, you usually give up something else that is good. Balance is very important.
• Beware of, and be honest about, genetic antagonisms as they manifest themselves. While I’m sure I’ve observed many cases of bigger mature size and higher milk being negatively correlated with reproduction, I also see a negative correlation with stocking rate, which is not a genetic correlation. This kind of relationship between a genetic trait and a non-genetic effect needs to be considered.

We have great tools; but, because of genetic and environmental antagonisms, I think we need to be satisfied with slow change in a balanced approach – maintaining or slowly improving genetics for cowherd productivity. Any genetic change that results in more feed cost, a reduction in stocking rate, or a reduction in reproduction should be questioned.