CSU: Ways to avoid infection at horse shows, events

Sunday, 27 July 2014 23:44

ShareThis Summer is peak season for horse shows and events, and Colorado State University veterinarians remind riders that it’s important if traveling to take steps that will help prevent the spread of equine infectious disease. Recent cases and outbreaks of equine herpesvirus-1 (EHV-1), which can cause potentially fatal neurologic disease, have drawn attention to the need for prevention. Influenza, salmonellosis and strangles are some other infectious diseases of concern, said Dr. Paul Morley, director of infection control at CSU’s James L. Voss Veterinary Teaching Hospital. In a new video, “Preventing Infections in Horses Attending Shows and Traveling,” CSU equine experts outline specific, low-cost precautions for horse owners. See the video here. “Some advance planning and a few low-cost, common-sense preventative measures will help keep horses healthy while traveling,” Morley said. “Protecting the health of your horse makes these steps well worth the time and thought.” CSU veterinarians advise horse owners to thwart infection by understanding and watching for symptoms of illness. They also recommend precautions including disinfecting trailers and equipment, and preventing contact that could spread pathogens. Morley recommends that riders traveling with horses take the steps outlined below; these tips are discussed in more detail in the CSU video. Prepare for a trip by properly cleaning the horse trailer and consulting with your veterinarian about your horse’s present health, vaccinations, diseases of concern and any other relevant issues. Pack all cleaning equipment and health supplies needed on the road. Avoid strangers, and don’t borrow or share. Contagious diseases are transmitted through contact – meaning direct nose-to-nose contact among horses, as well as your horse's contact with surfaces that an infected animal might have contaminated with saliva, respiratory secretions or manure. Bottom line: Separate your horse from other horses, and use only your own tack, grooming, feeding and watering equipment. Create a clean environment for your horse during a show or event. If possible, set up portable panels to confine your horse on event grounds, or fully clean and disinfect on-site stalls before housing your horse at an event. Monitor your horse for signs of illness. During an event, keep tabs on your horse’s temperature; monitor feed and water intake to ensure it is normal; and watch for other signs of illness. Ask your veterinarian for health information and how-to demonstrations, if needed. Segregate the traveling horse upon returning home. A horse that has been at a show or event may be incubating illness, so keep the horse apart from others for five to seven days and monitor for any illness that might arise before returning the horse to the home group. –From Colorado State University news release

Horse slaughter in the U.S.: Where are we now?

Written by Tiffany Dowell      

Horse slaughter is one of the most hot-button agricultural policy issues today. In the past couple of years, there has been extensive news coverage and heated debates among those in the agricultural industry, animal rights activists, government officials and even Hollywood stars.
Proponents of horse slaughter argue both economic and animal welfare points. First, they argue that the lack of domestic horse slaughter has caused a decrease in the market for horses in general and causes facilities to miss out on a lucrative European horse-meat market. Moreover, they argue, allowing horse slaughter is actually more humane than banning the process.
This reasoning is based on the idea that because slaughter cannot occur in the U.S., many horses are simply abandoned when owners are unable or unwilling to continue caring for them.
Moreover, despite the U.S. ban on slaughter, horses in the country are still slaughtered when taken to Mexico and subjected to inhumane and unclean conditions.
Opponents of slaughter claim the practice is inhumane, unjust and immoral. Additionally, groups claim there are environmental and food safety concerns in the slaughtering process at play.
Given the complexity of this issue, many people are left a bit confused about the status of horse slaughter in the U.S. and how the law got to where it is now.
In 2005, the federal appropriations bill effectively ended horse slaughter in the U.S. by including language banning federal funds to pay salaries or expenses of personnel to inspect horse slaughter facilities.
Without federal inspections, slaughter facilities could not operate. Temporarily, the USDA passed a regulation allowing slaughterhouses to circumvent the funding ban by paying their own inspectors.
In 2007, however, this practice was held illegal by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Thus, horse-slaughter facilities ceased to exist in the U.S.
In 2011, however, the federal appropriations bill was passed containing no language banning funding for horse slaughterhouse inspections. Soon thereafter, three slaughter plants (located in New Mexico, Missouri and Iowa) sought permits to begin slaughter operations.
When its permit was not granted in a timely manner, a New Mexico plant filed suit against the USDA alleging intentional delay in considering its permit application.
At that point, the USDA granted a Food Safety Inspection Services permit, which provided for federal officers to inspect the plant. A similar permit was granted to the proposed facility in Iowa.
Before inspectors were sent to the plants, numerous animal rights groups, joined by former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the New Mexico Attorney General Gary King and actor Robert Redford, filed suit in federal court seeking to prevent the inspection from going forward.
The plaintiffs’ legal theory rested not on the illegality of horse slaughter but instead on an argument that the National Environmental Policy Act should apply to horse-slaughter facility permit applications and a proper NEPA study had not been conducted.
This lawsuit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The plaintiffs, however, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
Initially, the 10th Circuit issued a temporary stay of the lower court’s decision, effectively prohibiting the plants from moving forward during the stay. The stay was lifted earlier this year, and the case remains pending.
While the 10th Circuit stay was pending, the U.S. Congress passed the 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. This bill includes language similar to that used in 2007 that prevents USDA funding to horse-slaughter inspectors.
This bill expires on Sept. 30, 2014. The proposed budget for 2015 contains identical language to prohibit funding for inspections.
So where does this leave us? For now, horse slaughter cannot legally occur in the U.S. due to the prohibition on funding federal inspections of slaughter facilities.
Although the 10th Circuit appeal remains pending, its outcome will have no impact on the ability of plants to resume horse slaughter due to the lack of federal funding for inspectors.



Tiffany Dowell This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist
Texas A&M Agrilife Extension Service

Alternatives For Replacement Beef Heifers

Jul 23, 2014by Burke Teichert in Strategic Planning For The Ranch
Beef Online

We hear quite often that the high cost of developing a replacement heifer dictates that we keep as few as possible. We also hear that a cow must wean 4-6 calves before she breaks even. I don’t doubt that, for many, this is true; but it doesn’t have to be.
At the recent Beef Improvement Federation meeting in Lincoln, NE, Rick Funston, a University of Nebraska beef cattle reproductive physiologist, presented research results indicating that, contrary to general belief, heifers don’t need to achieve 65% of expected mature cow body weight to achieve acceptable levels of pregnancy. In fact, the heifers in his study were in the 50-55% range of expected mature cow body weight, and were developed on low-cost feeds.
In Funston’s research and in other places, the cows produced from “minimally” developed heifers are proving to be better cows in their rebreeding rates and calf weaning weights. “Minimal” doesn’t mean they’re underdeveloped or that protein supplementation is unnecessary. The timing of breeding and calving will determine when supplementation is needed to keep heifers gaining weight before breeding and between breeding and calving as a first-calf heifer.
For years, economic research has shown stocker operations to be more profitable than cow-calf operations in most comparisons. If heifers are wintered as stockers, they should be profitable if sold as open stocker heifers.
If the only added cost is to artificially inseminate (AI) them or put bulls in, it may add as much as $60 to each bred heifer. In recent times, a bred heifer would easily bring $60 more than an open feeder heifer. So, in a typical year, the heifer owes you nothing. She’s paid her way and made a profit if you sell her or keep her as a replacement heifer.
The weaned calf crop percentage will be a little lower for the two-year-old heifers than for the mature cows, and the calves will weigh a little less. There will also be a few more open at preg-check time. The heifer will also weigh less as a cull, but the heiferette price will be as much as $10-15/cwt. better than for older culls.
The two-year-old year will cost you a little; but if the heifer is open and you sell her and her calf, she still should have paid her way. If she hasn’t, you should probably consider buying replacement cows – not heifers – from someone who specializes in this, rather than raise your own.

Join the conversation! Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

My point is that a well-run, profitable ranch should be able to cull cows at any age and make a good profit from the cow’s lifetime production when you include her sale weight. The few dry cows that lost calves between pregnancy check and weaning, and didn’t have a calf to sell, will be more than compensated for by the many others that weaned a calf.

Why buy replacement cows?

Why did I suggest buying replacement cows instead of bred heifers? Because two-year olds are less profitable than yearlings or adult cows. If you are buying replacements, why would you want to calve first-calf heifers, rebreed first-calf heifers, and market their smaller calves along with the bigger calves from your mature cows when you could calve and rebreed only cows that require much less attention? You can also buy smaller to moderate-sized cows and terminal cross them all with high-growth, good carcass merit bulls. I think most small ranches should consider this alternative.
When using low-cost heifer development and achieving weights less than 60% of expected mature cow body weight, I like to expose significantly more heifers than needed for replacements. I like short breeding periods – not more than 30 days. I know of a couple of ranches that expose almost all their heifers for one synchronized AI exposure with no cleanup bulls. The ones that get pregnant become their replacement heifers. With short exposure of yearling heifers, the pregnancy rate for two- and three-year olds usually increases in following years.
A larger ranch that uses this approach will usually have more pregnant heifers than needed. It can either sell a few bred heifers or sell some bred cows to make room for the heifers.

Related

Top Considerations For Replacing Open Cows
Commercial Producers Share Their Replacement Criteria

On the ranches I managed, where we developed heifers, we usually had significantly more bred heifers than needed. However, we kept the heifers and sold bred cows to ranches that routinely bought replacements and terminal-crossed those cows. By selling a good number of bred cows we were able to compensate for the additional cost of having a higher number of two year olds than normal.
When most people try to do an economic analysis of these kinds of alternatives, they try to estimate the opportunity cost of the retained heifer calf (what could it have been sold for). The problem with this approach is that you must also consider the alternative costs that will occur if you actually do sell the heifer calf.

Three alternatives

I prefer to look at three basic alternatives in which I consider my entire cattle operation to be one enterprise. That way, I don’t have to place an opportunity cost on the retained heifer. I simply compare:

• A cow-calf normal replacement heifer operation with
• A cow-calf operation with a high number of replacement heifers and selling some bred cows and
• Buying replacement cows and not raising any replacement heifers.

I’m sure that if you do this analysis correctly, many of you will be very surprised. The results will be different for different sizes of operations and for different feed costs.
You can ignore overhead costs for these comparisons; you simply need to get a gross margin (total livestock sales minus direct cost) for each alternative. The key is to do it correctly.
Sale weights and prices for those weights must be in proper relationship to each other for each situation. You also must adjust cattle numbers so that the total animal units are the same for each alternative.
When comparing alternative stocking strategies, it’s always simpler, and I think more accurate, to have the year beginning and ending inventories equal to each other. After allowing for death loss, you may only project to sell what maintaining that inventory allows. It’s not difficult, but it does take time and care to do it correctly.
Burke Teichert, consultant on strategic planning for ranches, is retired as vice president and general manager of Deseret. He resides in Orem, UT, and can be reached at burketei@comcast.net. His comments do not necessarily reflect those of beefmagazine.com or the Penton Farm Progress Group.

Heat danger reaches emergency levels

John Maday, Managing Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 07/21/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

For much of the country, this week has brought the first truly dangerous heat of the summer. As of late Monday, the USDA/NOAA forecast for Heat Stress in cattle projected “emergency” levels of heat and humidity across much of the middle of the country and parts of the Southwest for today, July 22.
The USDA/NOAA forecast maps for today show a huge area including most of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and parts of neighboring states rated at the emergency level, the most severe rating. Another pocket of emergency-level heat covers parts of southern California and Arizona. Heat rated at the “danger” level, one category down from emergency, extend across much of the eastern half of the United States. The forecast indicates the heat wave will reach its peak today and temperatures will moderate somewhat as the week progresses, but some areas of extreme heat will persist, particularly in Texas, Arizona and southern California.
At Iowa State University’s Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine website, Beef Extension Veterinarian Grant Dewell, DVM, MS, PhD, outlines precautions producers, and cattle feeders in particular, can take to minimize the effects of extreme heat on their cattle. Dewell reminds producers to work cattle early in the morning during hot weather, and not during the heat of the day or even in the evening after ambient temperatures drop. In cattle, core body temperature peaks two hours after the air temperature, and it takes them at least six hours to dissipate the heat load.
Dewell also offers suggestions and guidelines for drinking water, sprinkling pens, feeding times, potentially reducing the energy content of rations and other aspects of recognizing the signs and managing cattle at risk for heat stress. Read the full article from Dr. Dewell.
The Iowa Beef Center also provides a selection of heat-stress resources on its website. Among those resources is a summary of results of a survey researchers conducted following a deadly heat wave that killed over 3,700 head of cattle in Iowa during July 1995. The researchers conducted the survey to identify relationships between types of cattle and management practices and the impact of heat stress.
The survey involved 36 beef producers with 9,830 head of cattle on feed in 81 lots. Thirty-five lots with shade, averaging 24 square feet per head, reported an average death loss of 0.2 percent as compared to 46 lots without shade with losses of 4.8 percent. Producers reported higher death losses in dark-hided cattle versus light-hided, lots facing south or southwest versus those facing east or southeast and in heavier versus lighter animals. Lots containing heifers that were fed MGA had death loss averaging 3.8 percent versus 6.2 percent in lots with heifers not receiving MGA.

Showing Cattle Is More Than Ribbons And Banner

by Becky Church in BEEF Editors' Blog
BEEF Online Magazine

It’s not all about the shining trophies, purple ribbons, or champion plaques. It takes numerous hours in the barn, endless chores, daily washing, regular exercising, blood, sweat, and tears to raise a champion animal. Every minute of every day’s effort leads to one brief appearance in the show ring with the outcome resting in a single judge’s opinion. Perhaps the paradox, and reward of showing livestock is that a showman has so much, yet in the end so little, control of the outcome in the ring.
Judging by what we see in media, competition seems to be craved in today’s society. Still, in American culture, friendly competition has been replaced with the mantra that “everyone is a winner.”
According to USA Today, “We have built a handholding fantasy culture that is leaving our children unprepared for the ups and downs of life. … Without competition we are a nation of underachievers. It is time our country and our kids get back to winning and losing on the playing fields and failing and honor-rolling in the classroom. Our fun run approach to life is weaning future generations off of guts, fortitude, discipline, risk taking, confidence and other critically important ingredients for achievement.”
Today, it seems that in order for a child to have any success in their future sports career, they must begin playing by the time they can walk. When children pursue athletics at such an early point in their life, their performance often peaks prematurely or they become bored with the sport before they can earn college scholarships.
Showing livestock is different, in that it can be pursued by anyone at any time; as success is ultimately determined by effort over experience. Growing up playing multiple sports, I can testify that my inner competitor has surfaced most through showing livestock.
In my senior year of high school, I decided to ditch the basketball court and dedicate that time to the barn where my effort would prove to be more beneficial to my future. Plus, showing livestock serves as both an individual and team activity. While an exhibitor plays a major role in their own success, guided encouragement from family, FFA/4-H club, friends, and supporters contribute encouragement to guide them along; thus serving as the most cohesive “sport” there is.
Sportsmanship is taught through tough competition. An exhibitor learns how to be a humble winner as well as a gracious loser. There are no “completion points” nor “A’s for effort” rewarded in the ring. Taking initiative by implementing learned showing techniques, selecting superior genetics, utilizing smart feeding programs, and caring for their animals ethically, an underdog can rise to the top relatively quickly. There are no number-one seeds in a livestock arena. While there are exhibitors whose livestock perform time and again, the spotlight remains available for anyone who is willing to work for it.
Responsibility is not as much taught, as it is instilled, on the farm. Dedication 365 days out of the year teaches production management skills to all who are involved. Diseases seem to creep into the herd when least expected, and I’ve learned basic handling and antibiotic treatment to administer to sick livestock. My involvement in Quiz Bowl and General Livestock Judging teams has allowed me to apply the production knowledge and industry awareness that I have learned by selecting superior genetics to implement into our own breeding program at home.
What’s more, financial responsibility has been practiced through capital assets (aka cattle, lambs, and hogs) that I have invested in. Unfortunately, I have also learned that agriculture does not guarantee financial reimbursement. Every animal, vet visit, and bag of feed, adds up; and market prices are often unpredictable. But even with the attached expense, the experience has taught me money management and entrepreneurship.
Because animal agriculture is dense with risk, it is beneficial to have a supportive family nearby. Faith ties families together in dealing with distress. Losing livestock that have received unconditional attention and served as a livelihood is difficult. On the farm, I have learned how to cope with death as well as welcome new life into the world.
Self-drive, honesty, and integrity are the final skills that define youth livestock exhibitors as “cream of the crop.” Thomas Edison said, “Opportunity is missed by most when it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work.” Most farm kids portray an undoubtedly hard work ethic and persistent demeanor. We are not afraid to get our hands dirty in order to gain the results we envision.

Entering the show arena signifies the end of a show season’s long hours of preparation. At the same time, it is just the beginning – where hard work meets opportunity. As a 19 year old, my seemingly infinite years of 4-H will come to an abrupt end this summer. Looking back over the countless dairy cattle, beef cattle, market lambs, and market hogs that I have trained over the past 13 years, I do not view any one of them as “a waste of time.”
Showing livestock has been the foundation of the many skills that I have learned and has projected a bridge into my future. Due to my appreciation for animal agriculture, I am pursuing a degree in agricultural education – communications and leadership, with minors in animal science and agriculture and food business management, at the University of Minnesota.
“You get out what you put into it” is an understatement in the midst of agriculture. When it comes to showing livestock, an individual not only reaps physical reward at shows, but more important, gains underlying skills that will never be replaced. Livestock show enthusiasts truly are purple ribbon people.

Zilmax Has No Apparent Detrimental Effect on Cattle, UNL Study Finds

Beef Producer Magazine

The cattle feed additive Zilmax has no noticeable detrimental effect on cattle health or well-being, according to research by scientists from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service.
The study, initiated following Merck Animal Health's temporary suspension of the product's sales last year on concerns that it could cause lameness in cattle.
Ty Schmidt, a UNL animal scientist, and Jeff Carroll and Nicole Sanchez, both of USDA-ARS, completed the study.

University of Nebraska Lincoln and USDA ARS researchers use 20 heifers to study effects of beta agonist

During the 26-day study, scientists collected blood, via catheters; body temperature; and video images from 20 heifers, which were divided into two groups, with half receiving Zilmax at the recommended dose and half not receiving it.
Related: Merck Reports Progress On Zilmax Review
On the last day of the trial, four days after Zilmax supplementation was discontinued, heifers were exposed to a simulated stress event to mimic the stress response that would be anticipated in cattle being shipped from the feedlot to packing plant.
At the conclusion of the trial, heifers were harvested at UNL and their hearts, liver, lungs, kidneys and adrenal glands were studied.
Results from the study demonstrated some differences in physiological and endocrine markers of stress and muscle accretion in heifers that were supplemented with Zilmax compared to heifers not fed Zilmax.
Heifers fed Zilmax had an increase in parameters that indicate increased muscle mass. The increase in these parameters was expected, as the drug label for Zilmax includes statements pertaining to increases in creatinine and creatine phosphokinase, says Schmidt.
Results from this study, he added, also demonstrated that heifers supplemented with Zilmax had a decreased production of the stress hormone cortisol, and decreased body temperature during the simulated stress event.
Related: Merck Plans Five-Step Review Process for Zilmax Additive
Histopathology of the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, and adrenal glands revealed some differences between the heifers supplemented with Zilmax and the heifers not receiving Zilmax. The livers and right adrenal gland of the Zilmax heifers were slightly smaller than heifers that were not fed Zilmax, but there was no difference in lungs, kidneys, or heart.
"Overall, the results of this trial indicate that while there are variations in the body temperature, endocrine and metabolic parameters and histopathology of major organs of Zilmax supplemented heifers, these differences are minor and show no indication that supplementation of Zilmax is detrimental to the health or well-being cattle," Schmidt said.
In addition to Schmidt, Carroll and Sanchez, Steve Jones and David Steffen, UNL, and graduate students Joe Buntyn and Sara Serien, also of UNL, participated in the study.
Source: UNL

Analyst Sees Livestock Bubble Ready To Burst

By John Otte
Beef Producer/ Farm Progress Magazine

The bubble Shawn Hackett sees in the livestock complex started with the multiple-year U.S. drought that peaked in 2012.
The Boynton Beach, Fla. market analyst is hyper bearish on the meat complex. "The highs we make will not be exceeded for at least a decade," he says.
The drought and unattractive beef prices forced massive cattle herd liquidation that created a serious US supply beef shortage in 2013. It reached an apex in 2014.
"US beef supplies tumbled just as China's cattle herd suffered a major disease problem. Plus China encountered a shortage of high-quality feed, which is why US alfalfa exports to China skyrocketed. China's beef herd contracted just as demand for beef there was advancing. China turned to massive beef imports to fill the gap, which exacerbated the cattle price surge.

Perfect storm of global meat shortages, diseases and drought have driven prices to classic market-topping highs.

Pricy beef pushed consumers to seek lower-priced meat. But as consumers turned to pork, porcine epidemic diarrhea virus struck. PEDV catapulted hog prices into the stratosphere, while at the same time chicken prices were making new all-time highs," Hackett says.
"All meats were scarce and pricy. Still, consumers can eat cheap dairy products right?" poses Hackett.
As luck would have it, China decided to deploy a national dairy rationalization strategy to move from small operators to big operators to improve milk-per-cow efficiency and hence long-term milk production growth.
This triggered a temporary serious contraction in China's dairy herd leading to a milk shortage in China and a need to massively import milk powder derivatives.
Bullish events create bubble
"I am of the opinion that these bubbles will peak in 2014 and pop," says Hackett. "The current parabolas that we have been seeing on lean hogs, feeder cattle, live cattle and various milk derivatives are signs that the end is near, at least time wise. Bubble tops are always made when the maximum bullish outlook has been traded that ultimately proves to overshoot reality.
"Picking bubble tops is dangerous. One must tread very carefully as a speculator. Put options over futures is clearly the way to go in my opinion," says Hackett.

"As a producer the decision is much simpler," he states. "Sell aggressively at these very high, very profitable prices and then cover some of these sales with some call options in case the bubbles have further to go. If you do this, then you will have locked in a bird in the hand and can still participate in the birds in the bush with your call options should another upward spike trade occur."
U.S. consumers face competition
April US beef exports were up 15% from a year earlier giving US consumers more tougher conditions for buying protein at the grocery store.
Strong beef exports are significant because US beef production has been down almost 6% for the year and beef prices are at record high levels, notes Tim Petry, North Dakota State University extension livestock economist.
A weaker dollar in April this year versus last year contributed. Still, US consumers face competition from international buyers for US beef.
More export volume helps buoy prices. But less volume available to consume here pushes consumers to seek meat protein value in pork and chicken.
Otte is the farm management editor for Farm Futures magazine.

Brood Cow Size

By Dr. Ken McMillan
Progressive Farmer Contributing Editor

Have today's brood cows gotten too big? (DTN/Progressive Farmer photo by Boyd Kidwell)

QUESTION: Is there an optimal size for brood cows?

I think many producers have unknowingly allowed their cows to get too large for their production systems. By focusing on weaning weights in their calves and utilizing the cheap supplements of the recent past, they have selected for more growth in the heifers they retain.

ANSWER: I was always taught a cow should wean about 50% of its body weight. Calves with adjusted weaning weights of 550 to 650 pounds work well in our stocker and feedlot system and on the rail. So if we do the math that puts the ideal cow at 1,100 to 1,300 pounds. If it were only that simple.

Some producers, especially those in the grass-fed niche, feel cows that weigh less than 1,000 pounds work best. And I have several very good producers whose cows average between 1,400 and 1,500 pounds. So one size does not fit all.

What is the take-home message? Weigh your cows and calves, collect data and do the math. Never assume your largest calves are the most profitable. At today's input and calf prices, a 1,500-pound cow would have to wean at least 50 and possibly up to 100 pounds more calf than a 1,200-pound cow to recover the higher carrying cost.

(AG)

© Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.

Cows in Japan getting their Starbucks fix

by Abby Bauer, Associate Editor
Hoard's Dairyman Online

In Japan, not only are people enjoying a treat from Starbucks, some cows are, too.
Starbucks purchases somewhere around 400 million pounds of coffee globally each year, according to Bloomberg Businessweek. In an effort to be more environmentally friendly and keep those used coffee grounds out of landfills, over 100 Starbucks locations across Japan are now converting their used coffee grounds into feed for dairy cows.
The coffee waste, known as bean cake, is collected from Starbucks locations in the Kanto and Kansai regions. It is taken to a recycling center to be dehydrated, processed using a unique lactic acid fermentation technique, and turned into a substance that can be used as cattle feed or as compost fertilizer.
Interestingly, the fermentation method was actually developed by a Japanese contact lens manufacturer, Menicon, during its experimentation with new contact lens materials. Menicon partnered with Azabu University’s School of Veterinary Medicine to create the coffee-based feed for cattle.
These coffee grounds are not going to feed just any cows either. Milk produced by the cows consuming the feed are the same cows that provide some of the milk that complements the store’s beverages. Starbucks also uses fermented coffee grounds as a fertilizer product, and, in turn, those fertilized fields grow some of the vegetables it serves.
There are no immediate plans to expand the recycling process beyond Japan. Starbucks has, however, been making good use of their used grounds for years in the U.S. and other countries by giving them away for free to customers to utilize as fertilizers in their home gardens.

Is backgrounding calves worth it?

I recently had a discussion with a fellow about whether straightening out calves was worth it given the current market.   I know it it tempting to haul calves straight to the sale barn and pass the risk on to the next guy and take advantage of the current calf market.  I still believe that post weaning programs are beneficial and in the long run help you establish credibility as a quality producer, thus helping you establish clients that want to feed your cattle.  This are article I found on Drovers' supports my thoughts.

Calf Management That Buyers Will Pay For

Jul 3, 2014Wes Ishmael

 

 

Even with calf prices at historically high levels, buyers are willing to pay more for calves that are weaned and preconditioned.

In fact, according to the most recent analysis of Superior Livestock Auction data conducted by Kansas State University (KSU) for Merck Animal Health, weaned calves are worth $4.78/cwt. more than their non-weaned peers.

The Superior Livestock Auction analysis represents 6,891 lots marketed in 2013. The lots represent a total of about 682,000 calves averaging 566 lbs. each. Calves that were weaned and received at least one viral vaccination before marketing received an average price of $163.49/cwt. Non-weaned calves that also received at least one viral vaccination prior to marketing earned an average price of $158.71/cwt.

VAC 45 cattle — the gold standard of preconditioned calves — were worth about $6/cwt. more than the non-weaned calves, or about $1.25/cwt. more than the weaned calves receiving at least one viral vaccination. Along with other specific criteria, VAC 45 calves are weaned a minimum of 45 days prior to delivery and are vaccinated twice, with the first vaccination occurring prior to or at weaning.

Ken Odde, head of animal science at KSU, says the premium for weaned calves overall and for VAC 45 calves may seem static or less than folks remember from previous Superior analyses. However, he stresses that for the first time, the basis for comparison is non-weaned calves that received at least one vaccination prior to marketing. In early analyses, there were too few non-weaned calves that were vaccinated to reference. Producers have raised the bar, in other words, with calves vaccinated at least once ahead of marketing becoming the standard sellers provide.

In fact, only 15.9% of the Superior lots analyzed in 1995 (Table 1) were either VAC 45 or VAC 34. In 2013, 65.8% of the lots were. In 1995 44.7% of the lots were designated as “no program” cattle (not enrolled in a calf health program, not weaned, not virally vaccinated); there were virtually none in 2013.

Odde worked with Michael King, a KSU research assistant, to develop the initial Superior analysis in 1995. King has provided the analysis every year since.

Obviously, net economic benefit to sellers for weaning and preconditioning requires more than the average premium buyers are willing to pay. Besides necessary facilities and expertise, generally speaking, calves need to gain weight during the preconditioning period.

Be careful with the data

As you peruse the data (Table 2), Odde cautions about getting carried away with addition. Though it’s true each component is additive in nature, so is the uncertainty associated with each estimate.

Consider a straight English calf, weaned and pre-conditioned through a VAC 45 program, marketed in a single-sex, uniform load lot in light medium to medium flesh. Because of the uncertainty associated with estimates for each of those components, it’s unlikely the value difference would command exactly $13.22/cwt. more than an English X Continental calf that is non-weaned and marketed in a multi-sex, uneven-weight lot sold in medium flesh.

By the same token, each component does offer additive value, and the regression analysis offers a notion of the degree by which each component adds value.

Weaning costs, too

In order to examine the potential net economic benefit of preconditioning calves to sell, Kevin Dhuyvetter, a former longtime agricultural economist at Kansas State University, says producers need to compare it to other options — selling right off the cow, for instance. That requires developing budgets.
According to Dhuyvetter, the basic budget information needed includes: purchase price (i.e., selling price of non-preconditioned calf); production, including expected average daily gain, estimated death loss and percent morbidity; and costs, including those for feed, labor, interest, marketing and the expected selling price with preconditioning.
Dhuyvetter emphasizes estimated selling prices should be adjusted for seasonality, with the realization that as weight increases, price per pound typically decreases.
In various insightful preconditioning analyses Dhuyvetter has provided over time, he offers the following questions that need to be considered in order to determine whether preconditioning provides sellers a net economic benefit.

To precondition or not

• Why do you want to precondition? What are your goals for it?
• Do you have the facilities that preconditioning requires?
• When and how do you currently wean your calves?
• Can you delay cash flow, retaining ownership through a weaning and preconditioning program?
• Do you have the expertise, or access to the expertise, if you’ve never retained and grown cattle past weaning?
• When and how do you currently market your calves?
• Have you identified a specific marketing opportunity for preconditioned calves?
• Do you understand the realistic costs of preconditioning — including labor and death loss, as well as the realistic returns of preconditioning — including a potential price premium compared to same-weight calves at the time of sale, and the additional pounds per calf that will be marketed?

Choosing a preconditioning program

• Is the program recognized by buyers nationally, within a particular region or state, or not at all?
• What specific requirements are there for the program?
• Does the program require use of animal health products from a single source, be it one company or alliance of companies?
• What is the cost of participation relative to other programs?
• Does the program stand behind its products and services with any type of guarantee?
• Does the program provide third-party source verification?
• Does the program provide certified documentation of the health protocols and products applied to the calves?

Source: Kevin Dhuyvetter, Kansas State University

Biting the hand that feeds you

Laura Mushrush, Assistant Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 07/10/2014
Drover's Online Network

In the creeping corners of organic vegetable stands and the shadows of specialty stores lurks a very disturbing creature. Willowy in form with daunting pale skin, it sniffs and picks through an assortment of produce, eyeing each one like a hawk.
“Monsanto,” someone murmurs.
Just a whisper of the company’s name is enough to send the sallow, beady-eyed creatures to the darkest corners of the organic produce section. “Monsatin,” they hiss back, clinging to a GMO-free bag of lentils in efforts to ward off evil.
Sound melodramatic? Take a stroll through social media sites the crop technology company has a presence on and your faith in humanity will quickly be diminished.
Death threats, personal attacks, vulgar language, rants, uncited statistics, and mutant-horror stories grace the comment section of each post – and they’re all irrational. Together these trolls hide behind their computer screens and social media handles in swarms. Thousands more band together in national marches. They “March Against Monsanto” in the hallucination of their versions of health, environment, sustainability and safety – leading a crusade of hate and harassment on an entire company.
“HELL NO, GMO’s,” they wail and scream at the top of their exasperated lungs while clenching posters plastered with diminishing messages and propaganda against the company.
This rage they spew is directed at a company they benefit from when relying on having enough food to put on their table, because even in a perfect world, organic farming could never fully support the growing population.
Still, it isn’t surprising the agricultural company landed third from the bottom of America’s top 60 most visible companies – barely above BP and Bank of America. Ironically, their hipster antithesis marketer, Whole Foods, is sitting high at eighth from the top.
Harris Poll, which utilized The Reputation Quotient Research Instrument by The Nielsen Company, measured:

• Social Responsibly – Supports good causes, environmental responsibility, community responsibility
• Emotional Appeal – Feel good about, admire and respect, trust
• Vision and Leadership – Market opportunities, excellent leadership, clear vision for the future
• Financial Performance – Outperforms competitors, record of profitability, low risk investment, growth prospects
• Workplace Environment Products and Service – Rewards employees fairly, good place to work, good employees

If you want to get technical, that sits Monsanto in the third most hated hot seat.
And for what?
click image to zoom For working towards a goal of doubling crop yields throughout the world from 2008-2030. Hitting 9 to 25 percent yield increases in key soybean production areas like Brazil, Canada and the U.S, and upping corn production 33 to even 96 percent in countries like Brazil, Canada and Russia.
To everyone tired of hearing the same lecture on agriculture having to feed 9 billion people by 2050 on limited water and land resources, you’re in luck – soon the lecture is going to increase and intensify in numbers of mouths to feed. And it won’t be yours and your neighbor’s backyard gardens getting the job done. It will be companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Pioneer are working, and yes, earning a profit, to help farmers grow enough food for the world population. Utilizing sophisticated technology to create crops that are resistant to destructive insects and other pests, reducing the amount of spray used significantly, while maximizing the yield – just as they do today.
Instead of shunning, fighting and propelling hate towards them, shouldn’t we be applauding a company that has contributed greatly to solving the world’s most pressing issue of hunger?
And while every company has its flaws, it’s time, as a nation, to stop biting the hand that feeds us. It’s time to support all – from the farmer down the road and your neighbor who has a container garden to Monsanto and every other individual and company – who are working to put food on your table and mine.

NMSU Corona research center to host field day July 19

DATE: 07/07/2014
WRITER: Jane Moorman, 505-249-0527, jmoorman@nmsu.edu
CONTACT: Shad Cox, 575-849-1015, shadcox@nmsu.edu

CORONA – Ranchers will have an opportunity to learn about the research being conducted at New Mexico State University’s Corona Range and Livestock Research Center during a field day on Saturday, July 19.

“The primary mission of the Corona center is to enhance the understanding of woody brush invasion, hydrology, cow-calf production, and big game management, and to develop innovative solutions to improve economic development in rangeland-bound communities,” said Shad Cox, superintendent of the 27,886-acre working ranch laboratory that is located near the geographic center of the state, just east of the village of Corona.

“During the year, we host Ranchers’ Roundtable events where experts on a specific topic answer questions of the ranchers,” Cox said. “The field day will give them a chance to learn about the research being conducted here at the research center and interact with faculty and graduate students.”

During the field day, attendees will learn about research in:
• Heifer development on native and irrigated pastures.
• Fly control and its impact on cow performance.
• NMSU Corona ram test
• Juniper feeding to sheep
• Reproductive programs for ewes
• Supplemental rumen protected amino acids influence on lamb growth and fetal programing
• Ranch management programs and feedlot health.
• Potential to use genetic markers to select cattle for grazing distribution
• Targeted cattle grazing to reduce fine fuels and improve other ecosystems services.
• Targeted grazing of juniper saplings at the Corona ranch
• Habitat selection of livestock
• Associations among cattle on rangelands: Do cows have buddies and does it matter?

Registration begins at 9 a.m. with the program starting at 10 a.m. Lunch will be served following research poster presentations. For directions to the research center, visit www.corona.nmsu.edu.

How We Count The Cows In A Pasture System Is Important

Bruce Anderson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln forage specialist
Beef Producer Online Magazine

Are you trying to make your pastures support as many animals as they did for your dad or even grandad? Is that a wise goal?
Almost weekly, Bruce Anderson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln forage specialist, hears statements like: "Dad used to graze 100 cows on this pasture all season and now I run out after four months with only 90 cows. What's wrong with my pasture?"
Often there is nothing seriously wrong with the pasture, although pasture production might be increased by using improved grazing techniques, fertilizer and weed control, Anderson says. More often, though, the main problem actually is the cows, or more precisely, how we count the cows, Anderson says.

How we count the cows in a pasture system is important.

Fifty years ago, most cows were straight English breeds, often easy-keeping Herefords that seldom weighted more than 1,000 pounds.
"Folks calved in April and May, so they started on pasture with about a 100-pound calf. Now it's not unusual to have 1,400-pound cows or even larger with February calves weighing 300 pounds when they start grazing," he says. "That's a big change, grazing a 1,000-pound cow with a 100-pound calf to a 1,400-pound cow with a 300-pound calf. Eleven hundred pounds per pair vs. 1,700 pounds per pair."
Related: For Grazing, Don't Confuse Stocking Rate With Stock Density
Cattle tend to eat 10 to 15 pounds of green grass for every 100 pounds of body weight. So some of today's cow-calf pairs eat almost 50% more when they start grazing in the spring than pairs ate years ago.
"So instead of worrying about stocking rate, maybe you need to consider stocking weight as your pasture guide," according to Anderson. "Then when you add better grazing management, fertilizer and weed control, your pastures will do even better than they did for your ancestors."

Hard water affects herbicide efficacy

Ralph Whitesides, Earl Creech, and Clark Israelsen
Progressive Forage Grower

Are you using hard water to fill your spray tank?
Effective herbicide applications require attention to a multitude of factors. Product selection, following label instructions, calibration of equipment, application timing and operator experience are all factors that impact product performance. One factor that seldom gets much attention is the quality of the water used to spray the product.
Water often comprises 95 percent or more of the spray solution. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the chemistry of water added to the spray tank greatly impacts herbicide effectiveness.
Water is a simple molecule composed of two hydrogen (H) atoms attached to one oxygen (O) atom. Water is one of nature’s most remarkable substances. It is capable of dissolving or suspending minerals and organic matter, can freeze and return to its normal state once it thaws and is an essential part of all living organisms.
Before any foliar-applied herbicide can perform the desired biological function, it must be transferred from the leaf surface into the plant tissue. The above-ground portions of plants are covered by a continuous non-cellular, non-living membrane called the cuticle. The cuticle is the first barrier any herbicide must overcome to be effective.
Cuticles are extremely diverse and vary greatly between different species of plants. Surfactants added to the spray tank modify the spreading, wetting, retention and penetration of the spray solution. The type of surfactant added to the spray tank can enhance the performance of the herbicide and almost always reduces spray runoff from treated plant leaves.
When making herbicide applications with weak acid herbicides such as glyphosate, farmers need to be concerned about hard water. Hard water contains high levels of calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na) and iron (Fe). These positively charged ions attach to negatively charged herbicide molecules, often rendering the herbicide ineffective.
Herbicides with amine formulations, which include glyphosate, 2,4-D amine, MCPA amine and dicamba can be adversely affected by hard water. The herbicide formulation, combined with the elements of hard water, can lead to it being less absorbed by the weeds. Hard water can also plug spray nozzles and cause buildup in spray units.
Adding ammonium sulfate (AMS) to the spray tank overcomes the adverse effects of hard water. The ammonium cation preferentially attaches to the glyphosate or amine molecule and thus prevents Ca, Mg, Fe or Na from doing so. When ammonium is attached, the molecule binds readily to the EPSP synthase enzyme and the herbicide functions normally.
Common lambsquarters, a weed found almost everywhere, is often difficult to control with glyphosate herbicide. This plant species contains high levels of Ca on the leaves, often giving the plant a granular or mealy appearance.
Just like hard water in a spray tank, high Ca levels on plant surfaces can reduce herbicide effectiveness. AMS in the spray tank overcomes the negative influence of hard water and alleviates biologically induced herbicide failures observed in calcium-rich plant tissues.
Sometimes the question is asked, “What about filling the tank with tap water from the house if it’s hooked to a water softener?” Using soft water may be the solution to the problem; however, most people do not have a tap on the outside of the house through which soft water runs. It would be necessary to run a hose through the house to a soft-water source.
Although it would be effective, it would be a serious drain on the water-softening ability of the system since filling a spray tank would require hundreds of gallons of soft water.
Another drawback to this approach is the mess and hassle associated with running a hose through the kitchen, laundry room, or other clean area of the home. In reality, it presents too many obstacles to be practical. Likely the simplest, easiest, cheapest and certainly cleanest way to manage hard water when spraying glyphosate is to add AMS to the spray tank.
There are economic and agronomic benefits of using surfactants and AMS products when spraying herbicides. This article is a reminder to growers to read the label and follow recommendations regarding the addition of surfactants and AMS when spraying weeds.
Because of the hard water interaction with glyphosate, and thus the decrease in weed-killing activity, it is recommended that whenever a glyphosate product is applied, AMS should be added to the spray tank.
For additional reading and more detail regarding glyphosate performance, see "Understanding Gyphosate To Increase Performance." FG

Earl Creech is an extension agronomist, and Clark Israelsen is an extension educator – both with Utah State University extension.

Summer pneumonia in the beef herd

Russ Daily, South Dakota State University Extension | Updated: 06/30/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

Over the past several years, respiratory disease in pre-weaned calves on pasture has been increasingly identified in beef herds. These outbreaks tend to be unpredictable, occurring in well-managed herds as well as in not-so-well-managed herds. As such, they are frustrating for cattle producers and veterinarians alike.
Based on submissions to the SDSU veterinary diagnostic lab, the infectious agents associated with summer calf pneumonia cases are similar to those implicated in typical post-weaning bovine respiratory disease complex. Bacteria such as Mannheimia haemolytica, Histophilus somni, Pasteurella multocida, and sometimes Mycoplasma bovis are found in summer pneumonia calves. Viruses implicated include Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis Virus [IBRV] and Bovine Respiratory Syncytial Virus [BRSV]. Bovine coronavirus has frequently been found in nasal swabs from affected calves, but much more needs to be known about the role it plays in summer pneumonia.
Despite this knowledge, a specific diagnosis in an outbreak isn’t obtained all that often. For one thing, calves aren’t always available to post and work up for diagnosis. This is because typical summer pneumonia outbreaks do not exhibit high death losses. In light of this, veterinarians will often take nasal swabs from affected calves to isolate infectious agents. These results need to be interpreted with caution, however. Bacteria and viruses present in the nasal passages might not accurately reflect what’s going on down in the lungs.
Signs of respiratory disease in pre-weaned calves do not always include breathing problems such as cough or rapid respirations, although those signs may become more obvious when the herd is trailed or otherwise moved. Sluggishness, a reluctance to keep up with the herd, and drooping of ears are commonly noted. Many affected calves will have high fevers.
Most producers and veterinarians report that treating calves with summer pneumonia is frequently successful. A variety of antibiotics and anti-inflammatory medications have been used with good recovery rates. While these treatments enjoy a high degree of success, they are of course difficult to apply to individual calves in pasture situations. In cases late in the grazing season, pre-weaning vaccinations, along with antibiotics, can be administered to all calves if a high proportion of the herd is affected.
Compared to the post-weaning bovine respiratory disease encountered by animals entering the backgrounding lot or feedlot, little is known about the risk factors that predispose calves to pneumonia while on pasture. Some of the factors that have been speculated include:

• Poor colostrum intake as a newborn calf
• Exposure of calves to older calves (such as feedlot animals) shedding high levels of infectious agents (but not necessarily sick themselves)
• Dusty conditions that interfere with the respiratory tract’s normal defense mechanisms
• Adverse weather conditions
• Crowding and separation from mothers for prolonged periods of time, such as during breeding or synchronization.

Vaccines against respiratory pathogens at branding or turnout time have been utilized more and more by cattle producers in an attempt to reduce the occurrence of calf pneumonia on pasture. While this is successful for many, outbreaks of calf pneumonia occur in well-vaccinated herds as well.
Vaccines that include IBRV, BRSV, Parainfluenza-3, and Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus (BVDV) are used to boost immunity against these viral pathogens that set up the calf for more severe bacterial problems. These vaccines are available in killed as well as modified-live virus versions. Intranasal vaccines are also a popular choice in calves at this age, as they are believed to offer good local immunity in the nasal passages, and stimulate a good overall immunity in young calves. Furthermore, some beef herds vaccinate against bacterial pneumonia pathogens such as Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, and Mycoplasma bovis in turnout programs. Producers should seek veterinary input for their branding time or turnout vaccine program, especially when changes in products or timing are contemplated.
Since much remains to be learned about the factors contributing to pre-weaning calf pneumonia, SDSU has partnered with three other universities in a three-year case control study of herds that have experienced summer pneumonia. Study herds simply answer questions over the phone about their herd. We hope your summer is proceeding without any sick calves, but if you experience an outbreak and would like to help us learn more about this problem, please contact Dr. Russ Daly or 605.688.6589.