Ag traditions can be dangerous

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Transporting, transferring, or applying anhydrous ammonia.

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

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

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

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

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

Branding time and Beef Quality Assurance

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

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

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

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

Cow disposition affects pregnancy rate

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

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

USDA's Proposed Rule for Brazil Lacks Science and Sense

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

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

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

05/02/2014 11:02 AM EDT

 

Release 0077.14

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategies to stamp out stable flies

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

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

EHV-1 outbreak: Protect your ranch horses

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

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