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.