Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Calfhood vaccination to prevent post-weaning BRD

By John Maday, Editor, Bovine Veterinarian


During last week’s Academy of Veterinary Consultants conference, Phil Griebel, DVM, PhD, presented research results suggesting vaccinating newborn calves, using a modified live, intranasal vaccine, can provide protection against pathogens causing bovine respiratory disease later in life.
Griebel is a research fellow at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization and professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Saskatchewan. In his research, he studies the mucosal immune system in newborn calves. Over 70 percent of the cattle immune system, he says, is associated with epithelial cells on the surfaces of the respiratory, gastro-intestinal and reproductive system. And over 90 percent of pathogens, both respiratory and enteric, enter the animal’s system through mucosal surfaces.
Shortly after birth, the mucosal surfaces of newborn calves are rapidly colonized by a wide variety of commensal microbes, which affect the development of the mucosal immune system, Griebel says. This is especially true in the upper respiratory system, which is the first point of infection for pathogens entering through the nostrils.
Using an intranasal vaccine within the first four weeks of a calf’s life potentially can provide several benefits, Griebel says.
· Protection when cows were not properly vaccinated pre-calving.
· Protection in cases of sub-optimal transfer of maternal antibodies.
· Protection when immune status of the cow and calf are unknown.
· Protection in the face of an outbreak of respiratory or enteric disease among newborn calves.
· Enhanced immune protection while maternal antibodies wane as the calf ages. Griebel says the early vaccination can establish an immune memory that provides protection during the early post-weaning period, particularly when compared with vaccinating weaned calves upon arrival at backgrounding or feeding operations, when it takes the vaccine three to four weeks to provide protection.
Griebel also notes that immunoglobulin A (IgA) is the primary antibody secreted at the mucosal surface, and within a few days after a calf’s birth, most of the maternal IgA has been cleared from the respiratory mucosal surface, leaving little to interfere with activity of the vaccine.
Griebel outlined a pair of trials he conducted, one to compare immunity between calves receiving a modified-live, intra-nasal vaccine at branding time (three to six weeks of age) and non-vaccinated control calves, and another study to compare the effects of calfhood intranasal versus intra-muscular modified-live vaccines on immune memory.
In the first trial, researchers vaccinated one group of calves using the modified-live, intranasal vaccine and used a diluent (non-active fluid) intranasally on the control calves. Prior to weaning, they collected serum and selected 20 health calves from each group, which were shipped to the feedlot a week later. After a short receiving period, all the calves were challenged with aerosol containing bovine herpesvirus 1 (BHV-1), the virus associated with Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR), one of the common causes of BRD. At the same time, they segmented the two groups and vaccinated again with the intra-nasal vaccine. This created four groups: One group with no vaccination, one with two vaccinations, one with an early vaccination but no late vaccination and one with late but not early vaccination.
Results included:
· Control cattle lost 20 kg of body weight over the first seven days post-challenge, while the calves vaccinated twice maintained weight.
· The twice-vaccinated calves had significantly lower body temperatures than controls during the first seven days post-challenge.
· All calves were shedding virus by day three, but control calves continued to shed large volumes while the twice-vaccinated calves stopped shedding by day 12. Calves that received the neonatal vaccine but not the weaning vaccine were intermediate in shedding.
· Secondary bacterial infections caused some death loss in control calves but not in either of the vaccinated groups.
· A single intranasal vaccine at three to six weeks of age reduced BRD mortality but not clinical disease.
· Vaccinating early and again at weaning reduced clinical BRD incidence.
In the second trial, the researchers used a similar process except that at branding, they divided calves into six groups. Two received an intramuscular modified-live vaccine, two received an intramuscular killed vaccine, one received the intranasal modified-live vaccine and one group received a diluents.
In this trial, both of the modified-live vaccines helped reduce fever and reductions in gain during the post-challenge period, but the intranasal vaccine was the only one shown to induce sufficient immune memory to reduce the incidence of clinical disease.

Monday, April 6, 2015

Scientists dispute study on antibiotic residues in feedyard dust

By John Maday, Editor, Bovine Veterinarian

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Progress or Change

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

In my lifelong learning, I’ve relied on many sources but the most meaningful help has come from two of them:
  • Experts from the academic world who have the confidence of their peers and their students, have learned to work and communicate effectively with farmers and ranchers, and whose work addresses economically important questions.
  • Farmers and ranchers who are possibility thinkers, pay attention to the science, learn from each other, want to know the truth and adopt practices and careful decisions that make them more profitable.
It is from this perspective (paying attention to the science and observing the practices of profitable commercial ranchers) that I make the following observations on cattle breeding and the way we select and cull.
  • Years of observation suggest that the most profitable ranches have cow herds that are at, or just slightly above, average for most economically important traits. The most profitable herds also have lower-than-average milk production. Trying to push a herd beyond average for an environment usually comes with a cost in feed or stocking rate.
  • There are many genetic antagonisms (unintended consequences) which can vary from almost imperceptible at first to fairly significant.
  • We can make rapid genetic change, but it doesn’t always yield economic progress. Looking at the dairy industry as an example, we see that, if you select primarily for milk, you will get lots of milk. You will also get significant inbreeding as a result of extensive use of artificial insemination (AI) to closely related sires, poor fertility, poor survivability, many health issues and lots of cost. To a lesser extent, I think that focused selection in beef cattle for high growth and carcass grade has yielded some of the same effects.
  • Please understand that EPDs and genomically enhanced EPDs work, but too many people have used EPDs as a tool to strive for “maximums.” Maximum is seldom, if ever, the most profitable course.

Improvement Carries a Cost

Most improvement in performance comes with a cost. Often, that cost is in the reduction of performance in another trait, a reduction in stocking rate, or higher feed costs, each of which can take several years to become obvious. We need to be sure the added revenue is greater than the added cost.
  • The use of AI, embryo transfer and today’s genomically enhanced EPDs, without great care, can lead to a significant increase in inbreeding for the most popular breeds.
  • If cell division to form egg and sperm happened for each gene pair individually, I would not have so much concern. But cells divide a chromosome at a time, which means that to get the good stuff on a particular chromosome, you will also have to take whatever else happens to be on that chromosome – the possible antagonisms.
  • The relatively new study of “epigenetics” suggests that environmental factors may turn genes on or off. I think one might further suppose that environmental factors can reduce, enhance or even modify the effect of genes. Genes also have effects on each other – most of which are unknown and unmeasured. That’s just the way complex systems work.
  • Many geneticists and a number of seedstock breeders are promoting the use of selection indices. The index becomes a composite of the “economically relevant traits.”
In putting the index together, each trait receives a weighting based on heritability and economic importance. From environment to environment, the relationship of heritability from trait to trait is seldom the same (though it may be close). The relative economic importance of each trait can also vary from place to place and from time to time. There is just enough skeptic in me (I call it being careful) to wonder if the economic weighting for each trait in the index was done correctly for my objectives.
Being a “systems thinker,” considering the forgoing observations and recognizing that the use of EPDs can move us toward or away from our profit objectives, I want to suggest the following combination of management and genetics as a method of herd improvement:
  • Cull cows that aren’t doing what you want them to do. Don’t expect careful culling to be a big genetic trend changer. It won’t be. But, it will keep your herd cleaned up, functional and easy to manage. It will help you avoid keeping offspring from the poorest few. I have noticed that, when culling for unacceptable disposition or performance, you only have to remove a few each year to keep problems at a low level and to make life easier and much more enjoyable.
  • Use low-cost development and a very short breeding season for yearling heifers, exposing significantly more than will be needed. If you start with heifers that can be developed at a low cost and get pregnant in less than 30 days, you will have better cows raising better calves and with better rebreeding rates. Naturally you will sort off the real misfits before breeding.
This is more management than genetics, but it will give much quicker bottom-line results. This is written from the perspective of one who produces his own replacement heifers. However, if your better alternative is to buy bred cows, you should try to find a producer who comes close to following these recommendations for your source of bred cows.
You must depend on your seedstock provider(s) to make most of the genetic changes you desire in your herd. I want my bull provider to:
  • Judiciously use the genetic tools at his disposal.
  • Produce and help me select bulls that will produce good mother cows – moderate in size and milk production, and that will work in my environment and with my management. He needs to be a low-cost, low input operator with his cowherd. Since I don’t pamper my cows, I don’t want him to pamper his. Sure, I want good steer calves, but I want mother cows first. A good mother will usually produce an acceptable steer and do it with low cost.
  • Keep accurate individual records and report 100% of the records to his breed association. I don’t like the problems or inferior performance to be excluded from the records.
  • Help me maintain a reasonable level of heterosis in my herd (somewhere between 65 and 80% of maximum or F1 heterosis). This means I will either need more than one seedstock supplier or the chosen supplier will be able to provide genetics from at least three breeds.
  • Not follow popular fads without good justification.
  • Be satisfied with slow, sustained, balanced progress. Many years of watching has shown that, when you try to move one trait too far or too fast, you usually give up something else that is good. Balance is very important.
  • Beware of, and be honest about, genetic antagonisms as they manifest themselves. While I’m sure I’ve observed many cases of bigger mature size and higher milk being negatively correlated with reproduction, I also see a negative correlation with stocking rate, which is not a genetic correlation. This kind of relationship between a genetic trait and a non-genetic effect needs to be considered.
We have great tools; but, because of genetic and environmental antagonisms, I think we need to be satisfied with slow change in a balanced approach – maintaining or slowly improving genetics for cowherd productivity. Any genetic change that results in more feed cost, a reduction in stocking rate, or a reduction in reproduction should be questioned.

Private Applicator

Note:
I posted yesterday that I would host a Private Applicator Training on April 23rd.  That has been changed to April 21st.  Again if you or someone you know needs to get their PA License. Please call in to reserve your spot.  356-4417.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

News updates

Sorry all I haven't updated much lately on the blog.

For all producers:

USDA will be conducting a grasshopper survey in late April.  If you are having problems or see an unusual amount of grasshopper activity, please give me a call here at 356-4417 and I will update the technicians about the problem location.

NOTE:CHANGE!!!

I will be hosting a Private Applicator Training course on April 21st from 1:30 pm to 3:30 pm in the McAlister Room.  This is for individuals that need to get a license.   If you are interested in taking the course or know someone that needs the course please call 356-4417.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Farm Bill Update


Posted: 27 Feb 2015 09:42 AM PST


USDA Provides One-Time Extension of Deadline to Update Base Acres or Yield History for ARC/PLC Programs
 
 
Farmers Now Have Until March 31 to Update Yields and Reallocate Base Acres; Deadline for Choosing Between ARC and PLC also Remains March 31
 
 
 
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27, 2015 — Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced today that a one-time extension will be provided to producers for the new safety-net programs established by the 2014 Farm Bill, known as Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC). The final day to update yield history or reallocate base acres has been extended one additional month, from Feb. 27, 2015 until March 31, 2015.  The final day for farm owners and producers to choose ARC or PLC coverage also remains March 31, 2015. 
 
“This is an important decision for producers, because these programs provide financial protection against unexpected changes in the marketplace. Producers are working to make the best decision they can.  And we’re working to ensure that they’ve got the time, the information, and the opportunities to have those final conversations, review their data, and to visit the Farm Service Agency to make those decisions,” said Vilsack. 
 
If no changes are made to yield history or base acres by March 31, 2015, the farm's current yield and base will be used.  A program choice of ARC or PLC coverage also must be made by March 31, 2015, or there will be no 2014 payments for the farm and the farm will default to PLC coverage through the 2018 crop year.
 
“These are complex decisions, which is why we launched a strong education and outreach campaign back in September.  Now we’re providing a one-time extension of an additional month so that every producer is fully prepared to enroll in this program, “ said Vilsack.
 
Nationwide, more than 2.9 million educational postcards, in English and Spanish, have been sent to producers, and over 4,100 training sessions have been conducted on the new safety-net programs. The online tools, available at www.fsa.usda.gov/arc-plc, allow producers to explore projections on how ARC or PLC coverage will affect their operation under possible future scenarios.
 
Covered commodities include barley, canola, large and small chickpeas, corn, crambe, flaxseed, grain sorghum, lentils, mustard seed, oats, peanuts, dry peas, rapeseed, long grain rice, medium grain rice (which includes short grain rice), safflower seed, sesame, soybeans, sunflower seed and wheat. Upland cotton is no longer a covered commodity.
 
To learn more, farmers can contact their local Farm Service Agency county office.  To find your local office visit http://offices.usda.gov.
 
The Farm Bill builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past six years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings for the taxpayer. Since enactment, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has made significant progress to implement each provision of this critical legislation, including providing disaster relief to farmers and ranchers; strengthening risk management tools; expanding access to rural credit; funding critical research; establishing innovative public-private conservation partnerships; developing new markets for rural-made products; and investing in infrastructure, housing and community facilities to help improve quality of life in rural America. For more information, visit www.usda.gov/farmbill.
 
#
 
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).
 

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Ag Expo - February 20 & 21


New Mexico Ag Expo, Portales, NM

Friday, February 20

9:00      Expo & Exhibits Open

9:30      Cover Crop Choices--the Limitations Imposed by Residual and In-season Herbicides

Dr. Calvin Trostle

            Extension Agronomist

            Texas Agri-Life

Art Room, Idsinga Pavilion (1 CEU)

10:00    Simply Prepared Meals & Menus

Connie Moyers,

Roosevelt Co. Ext. Home Economist

McAlister Room, JLCC

 

Working with Stock Dogs

            Kyle Dillard

            Milnesand, NM

            Idsinga Pavilion

 

10:30    Soil Testing & Chemical Fertilizer Management for Small Grains

Dr. Calvin Trostle

            Extension Agronomist

            Texas Agri-Life

Art Room, Idsinga Pavilion

11:00    Antique Tractor Parade

            Midway

11:00 to 2:00   Chuck Wagon Lunch   

                        Portales Rotary Club

1:00      Replacements Females – “Options?”

            Dr. Marcy Ward

            NMSU Cooperative Extension

Livestock Specialist

Art Room, Idsinga Pavilion                     

           

1:30      Antique Tractor Games

Working with Stock Dogs

            Kyle Dillard

            Milnesand, NM

            Idsinga Pavilion

 

2:00      Antique Tractor Parade

 

3:00      Water Harvesting &

Making Your Own Rain Barrel

            Patrick Kircher

Roosevelt County Ag Agent

Connie Moyers

            Roosevelt Co. Ext. Home Economist

McAlister Room, JLCC

5:00      Expo Closes

2015 Schedule of Events

Saturday, February 21

9:00      Expo & exhibits open

10:00    Advance Your Horsemanship

            Trevor Carter

            Carter Ranch Horse

            Farwell, TX

            Idsinga Pavilion

 

10:00    Crazy about Succulents &

Farm House Treasures

            Connie Moyers

            Roosevelt Co. Ext. Home Economist

            McAlister Room, JLCC

 

Antique Tractor Games

Midway

 

12:00    Antique Tractor Parade

            Midway

 

12:30    "The Scoop: An Update on Equine Supplements and Nutraceuticals"

Dr. Jason Turner

NMSU Extension Horse Specialist

            Art Room, Idsinga Pavilion

 

1:00      Mounted Shooting Demonstration

            Kathy Hollmann-Ellsworth

            World Champion Mounted Shooter      

Outdoor Arena

 

1:30      Advance Your Horsemanship 

Trevor Carter

            Carter Ranch Horse

            Farwell, TX

            Idsinga Pavilion

 

1:30      Xeriscaping and other Low Maintenance Ideas for Improving Your Yard

            Curt Jaynes

Garden Source

            McAlister Room, JLCC

2:00      Antique Tractor Parade

3:00      Expo Closes