Cct131007

WHERE PRICE MEETS VALUE · COMPOSTING SRMS · 3D FENCING

THE BEEF MAGAZINE

OCTOBER 2013 $3.00

WWW.CANADIANCATTLEMEN.CA

Plan to

STAY

SAFE Reg Steward

B.C. Ranch Safety Consultant

Publications Mail Agreement Number 40069240

CANADIAN CATTLEMEN NEEDS YOUR

CALVING TIPS & TALES YOUR REWARD: A limited edition Canadian Cattlemen cap  SEE

DETAILS ON PG. 7

Established 1938 ISSN 1196-8923 CATTLEMEN EDITORIAL Editor: Gren Winslow 1666 Dublin Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3H 0H1 (204) 944-5753 Fax (204) 944-5416 E-mail: gren@fbcpublishing.com

Contents CANADIAN CATTLEMEN · OCTOBER 2013 · VOLUME 76, NO. 10

 P RO C ESS I NG

Field Editor: Debbie Furber Box 1168, Tisdale, SK S0E 1T0 (306) 873-4360 Fax (306) 873-4360 E-mail: debbie.furber@fbcpublishing.com ADVERTISING SALES Deborah Wilson RR 1, Lousana, AB T0M 1K0 (403) 325-1695 Fax (403) 944-5562 E-mail: deb.wilson@fbcpublishing.com HEAD OFFICE 1666 Dublin Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3H 0H1 (204) 944-5765 Fax (204) 944-5562 Advertising Services Co-ordinator: Arlene Bomback (204) 944-5765 Fax (204) 944-5562 E-mail: ads@fbcpublishing.com Publisher: Lynda Tityk E-mail: lynda.tityk@fbcpublishing.com Associate Publisher/Editorial Director: John Morriss E-mail: john.morriss@fbcpublishing.com Production Director: Shawna Gibson E-mail: shawna@fbcpublishing.com Circulation Manager: Heather Anderson E-mail: heather@fbcpublishing.com President: Bob Willcox Glacier Media Agricultural Information Group Email: bwillcox@glaciermedia.ca

GETTING TO A PLACE WHERE PRICE MEETS VALUE  M A NAG E M E N T

FEATURES Farm safety plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Contents of Cattlemen are copyrighted and may be reproduced only when written permission is obtained from the editor and proper credit is given to Cattlemen.

A BSE update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Cattlemen and Canadian Cattlemen are Trade Marks of Farm Business Communications.

Getting to a place where price meets value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Cattlemen is published monthly (with the exception of July and 2 issues in January and October) by Farm Business Communications.

Head office: Winnipeg, Manitoba. Printed by Transcontinental LGMC. Cattlemen is printed with linseed oil-based inks.

The quest for profitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Subscription rates in Canada — $36.75 for one year, $55 for 2 years, $79 for 3 years (prices include GST). Manitoba residents add 8% PST. U.S. subscription rate — $35 (U.S. funds). Subscription rate outside Canada and U.S. — $55 per year. Single copies $3.

We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Periodical Fund of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Publications Mail Agreement Number 40069240.

Canadian Postmaster: Return undeliverable Canadian addresses (covers only) to: Circulation Dept., PO Box 9800, Winnipeg, MB R3C 3k7.

U.S. Postmaster: Send address changes and undeliverable addresses (covers only) to: Circulation Dept., PO Box 9800, Winnipeg, MB R3C 3k7.

PRINTED IN CANADA

Accountable choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

The quest for profitability

22

Fencing goes 3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Verified Beef Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Bale grazing — keep it cheap! . . . . . . . . . . . 38

 P RO C ESS I NG

DEPARTMENTS Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Newsmakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Our History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Member

Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

LIVESTOCK PUBLICATIONS COUNCIL

Our commitment to your privacy: At Farm Business Communications we have a firm commitment to protecting your privacy and security as our customer. Farm Business Communications will only collect personal information if it is required for the proper functioning of our business. As part of our commitment to enhance customer service, we may share this personal information with other strategic business partners. For more information regarding our Customer Information Privacy Policy, write to: Information Protection Officer, Farm Business Communications, 1666 Dublin Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3H 0H1. Occasionally we make our list of subscribers available to other reputable firms whose products and services might be of interest to you. If you would prefer not to receive such offers, please contact us at the address in the preceding paragraph, or call 1-800-665-1362.

Composting SRMs works for small processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 How to abort heifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Data counts.

Circulation inquiries: Call toll-free 1-800-665-1362 or email: subscription@fbcpublishing.com U.S. subscribers call 1-204-944-5766

The editors and journalists who write, contribute and provide opinions to Canadian Cattlemen and Farm Business Communications attempt to provide accurate and useful opinions, information and analysis.

However, the editors, journalists, Canadian Cattlemen and Farm Business Communications, cannot and do not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in this publication and the editors as well as Canadian Cattlemen and Farm Business Communications assume no responsibility for any actions or decisions taken by any reader for this publication based on any and all information provided.

17

Research on the Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Prime Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Composting SRMs

works for small processors

28

Holistic Ranching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Straight from the Hip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Cost savings for Maritime plants.

CCA Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Congratulations!

News Roundup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Vet Advice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

To our October survey winner, Rachel Hillbig, Kuroki, Sask.

This month’s survey is on page 48.

Purely Purebred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Cover Photo: Supplied by B.C. Cattlemen's Association

Sales and Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

The Markets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Market Talk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1

C AT T L E M E N · O C T O B E R 2 0 1 3

3

 COMMEN T

By Gren Winslow

Food for Thought A cruel COOL will exact some changes

U

.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson sure put the skunk with the chickens with her September 11 decision. The entire meat industry in the U.S., Canada and Mexico had asked her to grant a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of the new country-of-origin labelling (COOL) rule until their case seeking to quash the rule could be heard. Her 76-page ruling basically said “no.”

As Steve Kay points out in his Prime Cuts column this issue, Judge Brown Jackson rejected all the legal arguments made by the coalition (which includes the official cattle organizations of Canada and the U.S.) and basically told them their argument must be solved by Congress and not the courts.

The coalition almost immediately filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and was still waiting for a court date as this issue went to press.

If this decision is not overturned USDA will begin enforcing the amended rule as soon as the six-month educational period expires on November 23. Given the judge’s reaction to the injunction, it seems unlikely that she will find better legal reasons to strike down the amended rule when the coalition’s lawsuit comes up for trial.

That leaves us looking for a World Trade Organization panel ruling on the trade fairness of this latest rule change, and that could be up to a year away.

In the meantime, the COOL regs will start to bite into the real world. U.S. retailers that have put off adjusting their labels will now need to readjust their machinery and possibly their buying practices.

USDA says the extra segregation needed to produce a label for every cut showing where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered without the ability to commingle cuts of mixed origin under one label will have a midpoint cost of $123 million. Many think that is a lowball estimate.

Retailers also have to think about what they will do in a year’s time if the WTO rules that U.S. COOL still does not comply with America’s trade agreements. Will they suddenly switch again after having spent hundreds of millions for nothing?

The implications on both sides of the border are numbing.

Some retailers may try to avoid the issue altogether by demanding U.S.-only meat. Presumably their suppliers will shift their buying practices to fit what their customers demand, causing further disruption in the Canadian and Mexican trade.

The fact that the no-commingling rule applies only to meat cuts suggests more Canadian beef may end up in lower-valued hamburger, or the food-service line, rather than in high-priced displays in the meat counter.

4

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

Retail prices in the U.S. will also have to rise to absorb these costs, right at a time when sticker shock is a real concern for beef cuts.

Retailers are also raising red flags over the fact that they have to use the word “slaughtered” on the label of every cut of beef and pork in their stores.

The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association says the new rule will more than double the COOL burden on the Canadian industry to $40 per head from $25 under the old rule that the WTO panel had already ruled was unfair.

Obviously everyone in the industry will have to seek their own way in adjusting to this new trade irritant. And in that regard you may find some food for thought in the pages of this issue.

As mentioned before, Steve Kay deals with some of the implications of this decision on page 20.

Obviously everyone in the industry will have to seek their own way in adjusting to this new trade irritant

In her regular Straight From The Hip column (page 30), market watcher Brenda Schoepp makes an interesting argument for a return to smaller handy weight carcasses. A lower carcass weight means more carcasses are needed to fill existing orders. More carcasses mean more feeder cattle are needed, which means more cows are needed. And more cows put more money into producers’ pockets so it can circulate in more communities. See what you think. I suspect this one is going to generate some emails, tweets and maybe a letter or two.

In our story Getting to a Place Where Price Meets Value (page 17) meat researcher Jennifer Aalhus looks at some of the value-added benefits that could come by opening up the grading system to price beef a little more creatively in this obviously changing market.

A little further on in our News Roundup section U.S. economist Bill Helming makes a pitch for more grass-fed cattle to supply what he foresees as a growing hamburger market in North America. That may not be the product that everyone wants to buy, but it is the one they can afford. And he thinks there is money to be made by going low tech and low cost to fill this need.

The table’s set. Enjoy. c

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

ADD SAFE-GUARD ADD POUNDS

TM

Safe-Guard TM (fenbendazole ) is a different class of dewormer than pour-ons and injectables. It works fast to stop internal parasites and the hidden damage they cause. These parasites suppress feed intake, reduce average daily gain, hurt nutrient absorption and immune function, reducing the health and performance of your cattle.1,2 Use Safe-Guard as part of your parasite control program for more pounds of high quality beef in the feedlot.3,4 Visit www.AddSafe-Guard.com for more information or contact your veterinarian.

1 Endoparasite control, L.R. Ballweber, Veterinary Clinics Food Animal, 2006, 22:451-461. 2Economic analysis of pharmaceutical technologies in modern beef production, J.D. Lawrence and M.A. Ibarburu, Iowa State University, 2007. 3Pasture deworming and (or) subsequent feedlot deworming with fenbendazole. Effects of grazing performance, feedlot performance and carcass traits of yearling steers, R. Smith, et al., The Bovine Practitioner, 2000, 34:104-114. 4A fenbendazole oral drench in addition to an ivermectin pour-on reduces parasite burden and improves feedlot and carcass performance of finishing heifers compared with endectocides alone, C.D. Reinhardt, J.P. Hutcheson and W.T. Nichols, Journal of Animal Science, 2006, 84:2243-2250.

Safe-Guard is a trademark of Intervet International B.V. Used under license. Merck Animal Health (known as MSD Animal Health outside the US and Canada), operating in Canada as Intervet Canada Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. MERCK and MSD are trademarks of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. Copyright Š 2012 Intervet International B.V., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. All rights reserved.

TM

SafeGuard Bovine ad Canadian Cattlemen.indd 1

13-06-13 15:57

 THE INDUST RY

NewsMakers Jason Krips is the new deputy minister for agriculture and rural development in Alberta. He replaces John Knapp who has held the post since 2008. Krips is a Jason Krips lawyer who specialized in representing agricultural clients on legislative and industry policy issues, planning law and environmental issues before joining the public sector. He was serving as assistant deputy minister of international relations with the province’s international and intergovernmental relations ministry before his latest appointment.

Tom Schwartz is the new executive director of the livestock branch in the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. He was formerly the executive director of the finance Tom Schwartz programs branch. He replaces Paul Johnson who has moved over to the top job at the deaprtment’s regional services branch. Grant Zalinko is the new manager of the livestock development unit, replacing Jim Babcock, who retired earlier this year. Kim McLean, the former livestock specialist at Tisdale, has taken over Zalinko’s former position as provincial beef specialist within the branch.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry signed a traceability agreement last month that will make it easier to locate livestock in an emergency. This agreement supports the commitments made by federal, provincial and territorial ministers of agriculture to phase-in a National Agriculture and Food Traceability System, beginning with livestock and poultry. Similar agreements have already been signed with Alberta and Manitoba.

For the third consecutive year, the Canadian Country Music Awards (CCMA) Industry Awards presented the Calgary Stampede with the Country Festival, Fair or Exhibi-

6

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

A mural commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association (SSGA) entitled Riding the Brand was dedicated in Moose Jaw in early September.

The 15 by 60 foot mural, created by Saskatchewan artist Grant McLaughlin, depicts cowboys trailing cattle to the rail head. It is found on the building at 38 High Street West. tion of the Year award. Ed Harris, entertainment consultant of the Calgary Stampede for more than 15 years, was inducted into the Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame during the awards ceremony .

Stephen Scott is the new executive director/ general manager of the Canadian Hereford Association. Originally from southwestern Ontario, he worked for Alta GenetStephen Scott ics where he assisted in the design and implementation of a new genomically enhanced young sire test program and more recently as a market analyst for the Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency, where he provided insight into global meat trade. He also led projects looking into Canadian consumer meat preferences, the benefits of traceability, assessing regulatory burden and the sustainability of the Canadian beef industry. His appointment becomes effective December 1. He replaces the retiring general manager Gordon Stephenson.

The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) and its coalition partners quickly decided to appeal the September 11 decision by U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to not grant a preliminary injunction to block the implementation of the amended U.S. mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL) regulation. If this last gasp measure does not succeed in reversing the decision the USDA will go ahead with plans to enforced its May 23 COOL rule in November. The coalition’s motion argued that the May 23 rule could cause irreparable

harm to the U.S. meat and livestock industry and that the impacts are not in the public interest.

Brian Kennedy is the new grower relations co-ordinator with the producer funded Alberta Wheat Commission that was formed last fall.

The Canadian 4-H Council recently announced the 15 recipients of the $2,000 2013 John Deere Canada 4-H Scholarships for 2013. The winning 4-H members are: Rachel Glatt, DeWinton, Alta.; Bryn Swaré, Tofield, Alta., Rachel Verwey, Portage la Prairie, Man.; Makayla Rettger, Aberdeen, Sask.; Samantha Farquharson, Mount Brydges, Ont.; Hannah Jamieson, Falmouth, N.S.; Laura Horner, Minnedosa, Man.; Cassie Scott, Boissevain, Man.; Shelby Drew, Canton-de-Hatley, Que.; Katelyn O’Neil, Denfield, Ont.; Jacqueline Toews, Glaslyn, Sask.; Oliver Edwards, Major, Sask.; Amy Pizzey, Binscarth, Man.; Emma Van Loon, Tiger Lily, Alta.; Victoria Kyle, Drumbo, Ont. After the Cabinet shuffle in Ottawa some senior deck chairs were shifted around and Bruce Archibald, the president of the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, became the new president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. He has a Ph.D. in environmental toxicology, a masters in physiology/ biochemistry, and a bachelor of science in Agriculture, and worked his way up in the Ontario government before jumping to the senior levels in Ottawa in 2003. He replaces George Da Pont who became deputy minister of health. c

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

 our histo ry

Border battles in 1948

B

y January of 1948 the war was over but the Canadian government had in place an embargo on exports of Canadian cattle to the U.S. The Western Stock Growers’ Association invited the Dominion Agriculture Minister, Right Honourable James G. Gardiner to explain the reasoning behind the government’s policy to its members at their annual meeting in Lethbridge.

Lorne Stout of Calgary covered the meeting for Canadian Cattlemen. In our March issue he wrote that Gardiner was unstinting in his time, speaking and holding a discussion of his talk for more than three hours, but he was adamant that the Western Stock Growers could not look for a lifting of Ottawa's embargo for at least another two years.

The theme of Gardiner’s refusal was on three points. Canada could not reopen the border to cattle shipments because of the disastrous effect such exports would have on control of prices and inflation in Canada, that the United States did not want Canadian beef and finally that Canadian cattlemen in 1948 could not produce a sufficient volume for export above domestic requirements to make reopening the American market a vital factor to the producers.

It should be noted an agreement signed during the war called for Canada to supply 45 million pounds, the equivalent of 100,000 to 120,000 head of cattle to the British. “If there is more,” said Gardiner, “Britain will take it.”

He said Canada had written into the agree-

James Gardiner

ments both the price and quantity, based on estimates of the costs of production and amounts which would be available for export.

Britain had not questioned either figure.

This raised the question, he said, whether farms and ranchers desire to have prices stabilized over a period of years and whether the beef producers are interested in their prices being stabilized along with those of other agricultural products. He said to reopen the American market would be to undo much of the good that had been accomplished, that Canada’s beef producers would get only the tail end of the high prices and would then have to suffer the whole effect of any recession which followed.

Gardiner’s position was hotly disputed by the convention.

Without a single dissenting vote, the convention endorsed a resolution demanding a restoration of their right to private export of cattle, and to all of the benefits accruing therefrom.

Speaking in explanation of the wording of the resolution, (WSGA secretary and editor of the Cattlemen) Mr. Ken Coppock said (opening the border) would restore to the producers their bargaining power and they would be able to ship their cattle to whatever market would pay the best possible price, whereas at present there are no competitors from outside Canada.

Mr. George Ross, chairman of the Beef Council, brought a burst of applause when he said bluntly that the Canadian producers not only wanted the American market but must have it, even if it meant the West must secede from Eastern Canada. “Unless the free right to market is returned, we have no beef industry in Canada,” he said, “and Western cattlemen have no future.”

F.E.M Robinson summed up the feelings of the packed hall when he said, “We don’t want to admit the right of any government to run our affairs, and we refuse to admit that agriculture should be used as the anchor to stabilize the country’s whole economy.”

He said currency controls and other policies of the government were impossible, and would eventually fall of their own weight. “What we want to do is give them a little push so it will fall a little sooner.” c

CANADIAN CATTLEMEN NEEDS YOUR

Calving tips & tales Friends and neighbours, we are once again looking for your best calving tips and tales for Cattlemen’s January 2014 Calving Special. We’re looking for good ideas, practical advice, or humorous tales and photos to share with fellow readers. A reward will be sent for Tips & Tales printed in this special.

Send your calving tips to Calving Tips & Tales (and your address) to Canadian Cattlemen 1666 Dublin Ave., Winnipeg, MB R3H 0H1 Email: gren@fbcpublishing.com Fax: 1-866-399-5710

 ENTER BEFORE NOV. 29, 2013 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

YOUR REWARD: A limited edition Canadian Cattlemen cap

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

7

Doing more. using less.

A series on being ready for the farming challenges ahead

patriot sprayers: Application Without Compromise

By Mark Burns Marketing Manager, Case IH Application Equipment

A

griculture is an industry where so much is out of our hands; the best we can do is put our resources into optimizing the things we can control wherever possible. So while we can’t influence or predict either the weather or the markets, we can do a great deal to make chemical application predictable, accurate and precise. That can help optimize both yield potential and return on investment.

When we look at application quality, there are six drivers that determine the value returned for every tankful that is sprayed: • Accurate rate for the job • Optimal droplet size for the chemicals being used • Consistent crop coverage • Reducing overlaps and skips • Timeliness of application • Drift control

The Drive for improveD YielDs The first driver, accuracy, begins with the basics, making sure the boom suspension provides a solid, stable ride for the boom as it goes over the changing terrain of the field.

Ultimately, maintaining a constant height is key to getting a consistent spray pattern and even coverage from the spray tips. In addition, automatic boom height control using ultrasonic sensors on each boom can automatically adjust to maintain consistent boom height. Additional boom sensors and gauge wheels can provide added stability.

Achieving and maintaining the proper droplet size is another critical driver of application quality. Depending on the 1 2

chemicals being applied, the correct droplet size can greatly influence how effective its action is. Since droplet size is largely dependent on pressure, the challenge is to maintain a constant pressure while allowing variations in application rate.

Rate control is important; underapplication of chemicals hampers its effectiveness in controlling pests, weeds or fungus, while over-application can damage the crop itself. In either case, yield is reduced and return on investment is suboptimal.

Today’s Patriot® sprayers offer automatic section control – available technology to turn the spray system off when crossing a previously sprayed area. Additionally, the exclusive AIM Command system uses pulse-width modulation technology to control application without changing system pressure. That means droplet size and application rate are completely independent.

The latest refinement available for the Case IH sprayers is AIM Command PRO, which provides individual nozzle control to offer the ultimate in consistent application rates, even compensating for wide variations in boom speed in tight-radius turns without under- or over-application.

The next critical driver, timeliness of application, is one of the most important.

Often, optimum yield potential depends on taking advantage of quite narrow windows, making sure the sprayer can get into the field at the right agronomic moment. This is where the Patriot cab-forward design gives users an agronomic edge. Because

Source: Ag Professional Feb. 2012 “Early Season Weed Control Pays Off in Corn.”

Source: Bob Hartzler, extension weed specialist, Iowa State University.

caseih.com

the product tank is centered between the cab and the rear-mounted engine, Patriot sprayers exhibit a better-balanced load, distributing weight more evenly for less rutting and compaction, even as the tank empties. Plus, the engine is as far from the cab as possible, providing the operator with a cool, quiet ride that makes longer, more productive days possible.

Drift control is made simpler with the consistent droplet size offered by pulsewidth rate control. And when weather conditions or drift-sensitive locations increase the need for drift control, Patriot spray technology makes it easy to switch to a preset lower pressure while maintain the same application rate.

The KeYs To success How important are these six drivers of quality application? Simply put, timely, high-quality application is key to the success of any chemical program. Some university and company research shows that if weeds are allowed to emerge with corn and are left uncontrolled while the corn is growing from the V2 to V4 stage, the yield loss is usually more than one bushel per acre per day.1 Similarly, once weeds begin to impact soybean yield, each additional day they are allowed to compete can result in yield losses of up to 1 percent per day.2 So accurate, timely application can be crucial to yield … and profit.

To learn more about the Case IH agronomic design and how Patriot sprayers offer application without compromise, visit www.CaseIH.com/AgronomicDesign.

MaxxumÂŽ series tractors are designed to handle everything from roadside mowing, livestock operations, to row-crop applications. SurroundVision cab with high-visibility roof panel offers outstanding visibility in all directions while optional cab suspension makes the ride feel more like a truck than a tractor. Tier 4A Efficient Power with patented SCR-only solution improves fuel efficiency and reduces maintenance intervals. And now Maxxum tractors offer a CVT option that simplifies operation by automatically selecting the most efficient transmission range for the desired speed or load, eliminating the need for clutching and shifting. See your Case IH dealer or visit us online at www.caseih.com/maxxumcanc1013.

BE READY.

Š2013 CNH America LLC. All rights reserved. Case IH is a registered trademark of CNH America LLC. www.caseih.com

 safety

By Debbie Furber

Farm Safety Plans To start is to finish

S

everal recent farm-related deaths in British Columbia have heightened awareness of hazards in agricultural workplaces, resulting in WorkSafeBC hiring additional inspectors for agriculture to increase the frequency of farm and ranch inspections for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the province’s occupational health and safety (OHS) regulations.

In the past there were some exceptions for agriculture, but since January, 2006, agriculture has been under the full scope of the regulations, with some adjustment time for farm employers to learn about the regulations and their responsibilities.

Now, special attention is being given to agriculture, explains Reg Steward, provincial ranch safety consultant with the Farm and Ranching Safety and Health Association (FARSHA).

“Although inspections are increasing, there has always been a heart among farmers and ranchers to have safe work sites and work with FARSHA,” Steward says, adding that it was farmers and ranchers who established FARSHA in 1993 as a non-profit association funded by a levy on assessments paid to WorkSafeBC by registered agricultural employers.

The FARSHA team works with and for British Columbia ranchers and farmers, providing services free of charge for employers and workers.

FARSHA has an extensive resource library of online and print publications and videos, for employer and employee training on a broad range of safety topics. It will facilitate training events on request and is prepared to assist farmers and ranchers to develop and implement their own farm safety plans.

For safety’s sake alone, it’s far better to get a safety plan up and running, than waiting until an inspector comes calling and leaves behind noncompliance orders. If that does happen, FARSHA can work with you to make compliance a reality, Steward says.

WorkSafeBC inspectors want to see evidence that safety is a priority with safety meetings, inspections and training being conducted and documented, in other words, a safety program that is “alive and active.”

In British Columbia, ranches, dairy

10

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

Reg Steward is provincial ranch safety consultant with the B.C. Farm and Ranching Safety and Health Association.

farms, feedlots, stockyards, grain farms, hay or seed farms, haying operations and farm services (harvesting equipment) are classified as a high risk, therefore, businesses with more than 20 workers must have formal written health and safety programs. Those with fewer workers may have less formal safety programs.

While FARSHA’s mandate is to work with producers in British Columbia, Steward notes that the Canadian Agricultural Safety Association (CASA) has developed a generic farm safety plan called the Canada FarmSafe plan, which is an excellent starting point wherever you operate a farm or ranch in Canada. The core Canada FarmSafe plan as well as an emergency plan template are available to download at no cost and CASA personnel will be able to steer you to people in your province who can help with additional provincial regulations that apply.

Two common denominators and primary elements of any alive and active farm safety plan are documenting safe work practices that are understood by employees, and maintaining records.

Safe work practices

The safe work practices component covers training standards for every worker, each piece of equipment, animal handling, facilities checks and emergency procedures.

There should be a standard operating procedure for working alone. The key here is to tell someone where you will be working, when you expect to return, and having someone capable of responding if you don’t return on time, Steward explains. Obtain communications equipment that lets you check in at regular intervals when you will be working alone or with others in isolation.

Completing a risk assessment for each task is helpful because it will give you cause to think about risks that may not have come to light in the everyday course of getting the work done. This will give you time to develop ways to resolve the risks in the best way possible for your operation and consider how to deal with them if the risk level changes.

One scenario Steward describes is crossing creeks to check cattle. It could be something you do every day, but if the water level rises, the risk changes, so recognizing the

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

safety

hazard is the first step in the process. Next, think about how the higher water level poses a greater risk and what you could do to counter the risk. Some options may be to have other riders come along with you, take an alternate route, or wait until the water level drops.

“At times, incidents occur because we lock in on getting something done that can be put off to a better time,” Steward adds. “Always be aware of changing environments in your workplace. On the range, that’s a big workspace, so wherever you are working, consider the task at hand and ways to stay safe while getting the work done, having full regard for what you will be asking of yourself, your family or employees, and horse or equipment.

“There will always be risks associated with certain jobs, working alone, handling livestock, and operating tools and equipment, but you can learn to recognize, evaluate and manage the risks. That’s the difference between taking a smart risk or a flat-out dumb risk.”

He mentions riding a horse as an example of a work activity with inherent risks.

An experienced rider with well-maintained and proper gear and the right horse for the job will reduce the risk, but can’t totally remove it. On the other hand, an inexperienced rider with the wrong horse and threadbare gear is a recipe for a wreck and a dumb risk.

Orientation of new workers and returning workers is critical. “Never assume ‘everyone knows about safety.’ Understand that common sense is no longer common,” Steward stresses. “Training and education to ensure workers have grasped the concepts is part of responsible and safe practices associated with each activity, process and piece of equipment. As an employer, you need to take time the first few days to walk a new or returning worker through the training and safety standards.”

Sometimes people bring old ways to a new job instead of looking for better, easier and safer ways. An “I am a student” mindset will serve you well when it comes to farm safety, he says. What was the best practice 25 or 200 years ago in some cases still is, but the new sophisticated equipment requires ongoing assessment.

Farm safety plans often break down at the family level because it’s assumed that everyone knows the risks or they are not conveyed as they would be to an employee. Preplanning and ongoing discussion about safety are important, whether formal or informal.

He reminds parents that kids don’t just www.canadiancattlemen.ca

pick up things by osmosis. You need to make sure they understand and are doing the job properly. This requires vigilance in the way you are attending to the ranch and farm tasks, too, because little eyes will be watching.

Good safety is good business, Steward says, citing low-stress cattle handling as a production practice that brings rewards from the marketplace with reciprocal benefits of worker safety.

“ If anyone should have a sense that safety is important, it should be us.”

Reg Steward Ranch safety consultant

From another perspective, agriculture is a demanding job and employers often can’t pay high wages to match other industries.

One way of showing your appreciation for employees is to provide adequate training.

It’s tough enough to get good farm workers and if you are asking them to do tasks with which they feel uncomfortable or unsafe, it’s next to impossible to retain them.

Maintaining records

Steward acknowledges that maintaining another set of records for farm safety on top of all of the other record keeping requirements isn’t usually a job producers look forward to, which makes it an element that’s commonly lacking at the ranch level.

“Employers may be doing the training, but not recording it. A paper trail of compliance can’t be put in place after something happens,” he stresses.

The forms provided in the farm safety plan materials are your best option. Short of that, a checklist sheet or a notebook where you record training, work-alone check-ins and other safety processes will establish that you have been diligent in oversight, training and supervising your workers.

It’s important to have employees sign off after you’ve walked them through the safe farm practices to show that they understand and are able to demonstrate to the supervisor’s satisfaction that they know how to safely do the job.

Routinely observing and, if required, correcting employees’ safety skills addresses the “active” part of a safety program by creating an ongoing safety culture.

“The goal is to make safety a priority like other industries have done without hindering the job,” Steward explains. “FARSHA helps bring realities to safety issues with a firm understanding of what a best-safety practice is on a farm or ranch, without making safety programming an undoable or formidable task.

“What’s wonderfully unique to the agriculture industry is that we have large animals, large rugged equipment, big open spaces and confined spaces, our partners and children in an industrial setting. No other industry has that. No other lifestyle matches that. If anyone should have a sense that safety is important, it should be us.

Nobody wants the hurt, agony and financial burden of a life-changing injury or death, especially if it could have been prevented by implementing better practices, education and training. An effective safety program that includes, training, meetings, inspections, considerations for emergencies and first aid can help you, your family and your workers reduce the possibility of such an incident.”

So, yes, farm safety planning can seem daunting and it is tough to get started, but in the big picture, you have to ask yourself what’s more important.

“Safety planning is a progression — it’s not going to happen overnight. The goal is always more today than yesterday and more tomorrow than today. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel and you are not on your own. There are resources available to help,” he emphasizes. “To start is to finish.”

For more information and resources, visit www.farsha.bc.ca and www.casa-acsa.ca. c

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

11

 disease

By Debbie Furber

A BSE UPDATE

The spotlight is shifting to atypical BSE cases

T

en years after delivering the shocking news in May, 2003, of the first confirmed case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a Canadian-born cow, Dr. Stefanie Czub has some very encouraging news. So far, there have been no new cases in Canadian cattle born after the enhanced feed ban came into effect in 2007, indicating that all of the country’s control measures seem to be working.

It is now generally accepted that the classical form of BSE is caused by a malformed host protein known as a protease-resistant prion protein, which is transmitted to other cattle in contaminated rendered feed products.

There were only 18 confirmed BSE cases worldwide last year and no new cases have been confirmed in Canada since February, 2011. This compares to peak occurrences of 37,280 new cases in 1997 in the United Kingdom alone. In Canada, 18 cases have been confirmed since 2003, with 12 of those detected in the surveillance years 2006, 2007 and 2008.

“Concern about BSE, at least classical BSE, is spiralling down,” says Czub, who heads the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) National Reference Lab and World Reference Lab for BSE in Lethbridge, Alta. “There are still some unsolved issues we haven’t answered, such as are only young animals susceptible to infection and why only a small number of animals in a herd are affected and not all, but the focus now worldwide is on atypical BSE.” Atypical BSE is so named because the prions behave differently in the Western blot test used for BSE diagnosis, she explains. There are two types of the atypical form: the high type and the low type. They can be identified in the lab because they have higher or lower masses of a specific form of the prion compared to classical BSE and will show up at slightly different locations higher or lower compared to the classical form in the Western blot.

Atypical BSE has been confirmed in 67 cattle worldwide, including countries that have never had a confirmed case of classical BSE, such as Sweden and the U.S. Unlike classical BSE, which is mainly detected in cattle beyond a 60-month incubation

12

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

period, atypical BSE has so far been found only in older cows. Canada has had two positives for atypical BSE in cows aged 14 and 18 years, while all three of the BSE cases in U.S.-born cattle have been the atypical form in cattle aged 10 to 12 years.

An article on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website describes the occurrence of atypical BSE in France, where testing of every animal at slaughter or death on the farm is mandatory. The first atypical case there was identified in 2000.

Slightly more than 17 million adult cattle were tested between 2001 to 2007. Of the 645 BSE positive cases, 13 were the atypical form. This work showed sporadic occurrence with one or two atypical BSE cases among the positives in animals born in the same birth year from 1986 through 1997.

Research on atypical BSE is currently in progress in Germany, Italy and at the CFIA lab in Lethbridge, where Czub is studying how this form occurs and how it is transmitted.

When cattle were infected with atypical BSE directly into the brain, clinical signs became apparent within 11 to 12 months and the animals continued to go downhill, dying of the disease five to six months later.

The same experiment with classical BSE caused the disease 16 to 18 months after infection and its progression was slower with swings back and forth, but once the symptoms became permanent, it was only a matter of two to three months before death.

The animals infected with atypical BSE were examined once a month to monitor their response to light, noise and touch on the hocks, face and neck, compared to that of normal cows. All of the animals were allowed to calm down in the chute before testing. Those with low-type BSE were super-excited in the chute and barn, showing signs of severe anxiety, but calmed down once returned to their pens. The response of the animals with high-type BSE was the exact opposite, Czub says. They were lethargic and actually went down in the chute, requiring help to get up. Once helped out into their pens they were fine.

The next step is to determine whether cattle can acquire atypical BSE from ingestion and whether only young animals can

get infected, as has been the commonly held theory. As of June, it had been 60 months since researchers fed atypical BSE infectious prions to 13-month-old animals and none have yet shown any clinical signs of the disease.

The lab will also be studying the distribution of atypical BSE in the carcasses compared to that of classical BSE to determine whether the specified risk materials for classical BSE are applicable for atypical BSE. So far, this research shows that distribution in the brain is fairly similar, but examinations of other tissues are still in progress.

Czub says it’s highly unlikely that there will be a live test for BSE anytime soon. As far as a blood test goes, it has yet to be determined whether the infectious prion protein is ever in the blood. If so, it would only be early in the infection, at which time the animal would not have any clinical signs of the disease that would lead a producer to have the animal examined or a blood test taken.

The reason transmissible spongiform encephalopathy in other species, such as chronic wasting disease in elk and scrapie in sheep, can be detected in saliva, urine or feces is that the infectious prions affect so many tissues, not only the brain, she explains. BSE, on the other hand, can only be detected in the brain, spinal cord and some areas of the gut, making it difficult if not impossible to obtain appropriate samples for a BSE prion-specific live test. Development of any potential live test in itself would be a complicated procedure that would need to be reproduced, validated and compared to present-day tests.

In recapping 10 years of BSE research, Czub says definitely a lot more is known about the disease and there is much more expertise in Canada, but many unanswered questions and lots of work remains.

“As far as the classical type, the numbers are really encouraging. As for atypical BSE, we need to be vigilant and cautious as we know it transmits easily in non-human primates by injection into the brain and by feeding, has a much shorter incubation time than classical BSE, and we want to be sure we have the necessary safeguards in place to protect both consumers and the national herd.” c

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Join us for the

2013 Agriculture for Life

Harvest Gala SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2013 Northlands, Edmonton, 6 pm to 11 pm

The Agriculture for Life Harvest Gala offers a unique opportunity to celebrate Alberta’s agricultural roots. Experience a fusion of urban and rural style and design; the scrumptious tastes of locally produced foods, the sights and sounds of Alberta artists, a silent auction and a chance to connect with friends in the community market.

Tickets are available online (www.agricultureforlife.ca) or by calling Toll Free 1-888-931-2951.

AG FOR LIFE FOUNDING MEMBERS:

Agrium Inc. ATB Financial

ATCO Group Penn West Exploration

Rocky Mountain Equipment TransCanada Corporation

UFA Co-operative Ltd.

CONTRIBUTING MEMBERS:

AdFarm

Glacier Media Group

Mosaic Studios 06/13-21670-03

21670_03 AFL2013HarvestGalaAd_8.125x10.75.indd 1

13-08-14 3:03 PM

ď ľ Nutriti o n

By John McKinnon

Canola Meal:

The Forgotten Supplement!

O

ver the past month or so I have had the opportunity to visit a number of western Canadian feedlots and talk with their managers about their upcoming fall/winter feeding plans.

The majority were looking forward to lower barley prices and the hopes of closing pens out in the black as opposed to the red ink of the last 12 months.

Without giving away trade secrets, it is interesting to note how distiller’s grains with solubles (DDGS) have permeated the finishing sector, particularly in southern Alberta. Every lot visited had a bright yellow pile of corn DDGS, typically right next to the silage pile.

In these operations, DDGS is incorporated into the ration as a source of energy and protein. It is not uncommon to see DDGS inclusion rates of 15 to 25 per cent of diet dry matter replacing part of the barley grain and in some cases part of the silage. What makes this so remarkable is that 10 years ago, you would be hard pressed to find any DDGS in a feedlot diet in Western Canada.

There are a number of reasons for this shift in feeding strategy. First corn and to a lesser extent wheat DDGS is widely available, particularly if one is located close to an ethanol plant or as in the case of southern Alberta, a rail line and distribution network coming up from the U.S. Secondly, DDGS is typically priced relative to feed grains in Canada and the United States.

Competitive pricing combined with an excellent nutrient profile makes these byproducts very attractive from a nutrition point of view. For example relative to barley grain at 12 per cent crude protein, wheat DDGS is approximately 38 per cent crude protein while corn DDGS comes in around 29 per cent. With respect to net energy for gain (NEg), wheat DDGS is similar to barley grain (i.e. 1.40 Mcal NEg per kilogram, DM basis) while corn DDGS will be similar to or slightly higher in energy than corn grain (1.50 Mcal NEg per kilogram, DM basis). Combine these attributes with the fact that processing is not required prior to feeding and it is easy to see why these byproducts are fed at the levels cited above. Finally, there has been a great deal of research that has highlighted the nutritional value of these byproducts and how they can be fed to optimize performance and reduce the cost of gain. The widespread adoption of this research is a success story in itself.

However, it is also evident that the further you are away from ethanol plants or major rail hubs, the harder it is to access DDGS. This is certainly true for

14

C at t l e m e n ¡ O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

smaller finishing and backgrounding operations in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Many of the questions I get from these operations focus on the issue of protein supplementation and specifically what other costcompetitive protein sources are out there and can they be used as a source of energy and protein as is the case with DDGS. There are a lot of different ways to answer this question, however from my perspective one protein source that has been somewhat ignored by the cattle feeding sector is canola meal. This byproduct of the canola crushing industry is widely available and at 38 to 40 per cent crude protein (DM basis), an excellent protein source. Further, the nature of canola meal protein is such that it is relatively degradable in the rumen and thus supports the growth of rumen bacteria. This is important in terms of optimizing rumen fermentation and feed efficiency. As well, depending on processing conditions, 30 to 40 per cent of canola meal protein bypasses the rumen and is available for digestion in the small intestine. In some feeding situations, this balance can help meet the metabolizable protein needs of growing cattle.

When fed as a protein supplement in backgrounding diets, inclusion rates typically vary between five and 10 per cent (DM basis) depending on the basal ration ingredients. However, feeding canola meal at higher levels as an energy source, as is common with DDGS, is not a sound decision. There are two reasons for this. First, canola meal does not have the same energy density as barley grain (i.e. 1.05 versus 1.40 Mcal of NEg, respectively). As such, replacement of barley with canola meal to any significant extent will dilute the energy content of the total ration and result in reduced gains or poorer feed efficiency. Secondly, in contrast to DDGS, canola meal is priced relative to other protein supplements such as soybean meal. As a result feeding it as an energy source in backgrounding or finishing diets cannot be economically justified.

In Eastern Canada, where soybean meal may be more available and at 49 per cent crude protein and 1.47 Mcal per kilogram (DM basis) of NEg more attractive as a protein supplement, remember to factor in the cost difference. Canola meal typically trades at a significant discount (i.e. 55 to 65 per cent) to soybean meal and thus may lower overall ration costs without comprising performance. The bottom line is, if you are looking for a protein supplement this fall and cannot access DDGS, canola meal might be your most affordable alternative. c

John McKinnon is a beef cattle nutritionist at the University of Saskatchewan

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

2013 Fall meeting & election schedule Zone 1

(mEETiNg 7 p.m. STArT frEE SuppEr 6 p.m.)

Zone 6

(All mEETiNgS 7 p.m. STArT frEE SuppEr AT 6 p.m.)

oct 23

medicine Hat, feeding comPany TBA, South Sask. regional plan Brooks, BoW sloPe sHiPPing Karin Schmid, ABp

oct 22

Breton, community Hall Speaker TBA Ponoka, legion ryder lee, CCA camrose, regional exHiBition Brian perillat, Canfax

oct 24

oct 24 oct 29

Zone 2

(mEETiNg 7 p.m. STArT frEE SuppEr AT 6 p.m.)

oct 28

fort macleod, auction market ryder lee, CCA

Zone 7

(All mEETiNgS 7 p.m. STArT frEE SuppEr AT 6 p.m.)

oct 29 oct 30

HaZel Bluff community Hall mayertHorPe, legion

Zone 3

(All mEETiNgS 7 p.m. STArT)

oct 28 oct 30

sundre, West country centre stratHmore, golf course Karin Schmid, ABp cocHrane, rancHeHouse Doug Sawyer, ABp Chair

Zone 8

(All mEETiNgS 7 p.m. STArT)

oct 28

Zone 4

(All mEETiNgS 7 p.m. STArT frEE SuppEr AT 6 p.m.)

oct 30

goodridge, community Hall Doug Sawyer, ABp Chair kitscoty, community Hall Karin Schmid, ABp WarWick, community Hall martin unrau, CCA president

oct 21

cZar, community Hall Chuck maclean, Canada Beef inc. veteran, community Hall rich Smith, ABp Hanna, lions Hall martin unrau, CCA president

Zone 9

(All mEETiNgS 7 p.m. STArT wiTH frEE BEEf oN A BuN SuppEr AT 6 p.m.)

oct 29

grimsHaW, legion Hall Speaker TBA grande Prairie, stoneBridge inn rich Smith, ABp HigH Prairie, Peavine inn and

nov 4

oct 23 oct 28

nov 5

Zone 5

(All mEETiNgS 7 p.m. STArT wiTH frEE BEEf oN A BuN SuppEr AT 6 p.m.)

oct 29

sPruce vieW, community Hall martin unrau, CCA president Big valley, community Hall ryder lee, CCA leslieville, community Hall John masswohl, CCA

oct 30 nov 5

oct 29

165, 6815 – 8 Street NE Calgary, AB Canada T2E 7H7

nov 7 suites

Doug Sawyer, ABp Chair

elections are Being Held in Zones 5 and 8.

tel 403.275.4400 fax 403.274.0007

 researc h o n t h e r eco r d

By Reynold Bergen

DO IT EARLY, DO IT RIGHT

C

anada’s new voluntary Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Beef Cattle was released on September 6. The code (available at www. nfacc.ca) lays out guidelines pertaining to everyday beef cattle production practices. Like the 1991 version, the new code includes both should-dos (recommendations) and must-dos (requirements). The code was developed with input from cattle producers, industry stakeholders, veterinarians, researchers, government agencies, and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. A notable change in the new code relates to pain management when castrating and dehorning.

This reflects two decades of change in society and the tremendous amount of research into these practices.

Animals that have been castrated and dehorned are less likely to injure other animals, so there are animal welfare benefits to these practices. However, there is increasing public concern about the pain inflicted when the animal that is dehorned or castrated. Research has shown that castrating when animals are young results in a smaller wound, likely less pain, fewer complications, more rapid recovery and a smaller setback in animal performance.

Starting in 2016, the new Code will require cattle producers to use pain control, in consultation with their veterinarian, to mitigate pain associated with dehorning calves after horn bud attachment (two or three months of age), or when castrating bulls older than nine months of age (six months of age in 2018).

It is not easy to know whether a beef animal is in pain, or whether pain relief is effective. Cattle are “stoic.” This means they are evolutionarily wired to not let other animals know when they are in pain. This makes it harder for predators to identify an easy meal. It also makes it difficult for producers or researchers to know how much castration hurts, or whether pain control provides much relief.

Researchers have used standing, lying, feeding, ruminating, kicking, tail swishing, ear flicking, pacing and weight shifting behaviours to gauge animal responses to painful practices and pain control. These behaviours can be recorded, counted, and statistically compared.

These behaviours are altered in feedlot cattle in the days or weeks following castration compared to un-castrated controls. Pain drugs alter these behavioural differences.

Feedlot bulls that are castrated using pain drugs show fewer of these abnormal, pain-related behaviours.

Many of these studies have used drugs in ways that are difficult to implement in commercial practice. Some have used elaborate combinations of drugs, some of which are not licensed for use in cattle. Others have used experimental formulations that are not commercially available for cattle (e.g. oral meloxicam). Other experiments have repeatedly given the pain drugs over several days, requiring additional handling, stress and risk of injury for the cattle.

16

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

Few pain control options are commercially available for cattle, and all require a veterinary prescription. Anesthetics (e.g. lidocaine) eliminate all feeling and cause numbness. A local anesthetic involves an injection into the testicles and scrotum. An epidural involves precisely injecting the anesthetic into the spinal column. These drugs take 10 minutes to take full effect, can cause animals to lose co-ordination, relieve pain for less than three hours, and may prolong wound inflammation.

Analgesic drugs reduce pain without causing numbness. They can be injected intramuscularly (e.g. metacam and anafen) or intravenously (e.g. banamine) and provide longer pain relief than anesthetics. These drugs do not have specific label claims for castration pain control, so the veterinarian will need to write a prescription for off-label use. At the present time, analgesics may be the most effective pain control option available to beef producers.

A Journal of Animal Science paper (81:1281-1293) compared the behaviour of a group of un-castrated bulls with four groups of burdizzo-castrated bulls. One group of castrated bulls was given no pain drugs, one group was given a local anesthetic, one group was given an epidural anesthetic, and one group was given an analgesic (anafen injection).

The bulls castrated without pain control showed less feeding, less ruminating, less normal lying and more tail swishing behavior than the un-castrated bulls. Bulls that were given an analgesic before castration had the same behaviour results as the un-castrated bulls. The local and epidural anesthetic treatments didn’t work as well as the analgesic alone.

Providing pain control when calves are castrated in the feedlot will likely alleviate some of the pain of castration, but it probably won’t improve feedlot growth performance. The added drug costs will likely lead to steeper discounts on intact or belly bulls at fall calf sales.

The best thing cow-calf producers can do for themselves and their animals is still to castrate calves when they are as young as possible. Producers who do their chores early, and do them right, will be in line with the new Code of Practice.

The Beef Research Cluster is funded by the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to advance research and technology transfer supporting the Canadian beef industry’s vision to be recognized as a preferred supplier of healthy, high-quality beef, cattle and genetics. c Reynold Bergen is the Science Director for the Beef Cattle Research Council. A portion of the National Checkoff is directed to the BCRC to fund research and development activities to improve the competitiveness and sustainability of Canada’s beef industry.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

 process i ng

By Debbie Furber

We could be getting more out of the grading system if we start pricing cattle based on what today’s consumers are demanding.

Getting to a place where price meetS value Grade and yield don’t value beef the way consumers do

W

e could be leaving money on the table with a payment tied to grade when so many consumers today value meat far differently, says Dr. Jennifer Aalhus, a senior meat quality scientist at Agriculture and AgriFood Canada’s research centre in Lacombe, Alta., One simple example is the downgrading of B1 carcasses for a lack of marbling or backfat. The grade discounts the price, yet many consumers value ultra-lean cuts higher than Canada AAA cuts.

Today’s consumers are also interested in social attributes — animal welfare, organic, hormone-free, healthfulness and sustainability. Any one of these or a combination could result in a purchasing decision.

The crux for a value chain is to be able to deliver on its quality and social promises on every purchase. That means finding ways to efficiently verify not only production specs but social and quality attributes, as well.

Aalhus thinks some emerging online technologies have potential to change the way commercial beef carcasses are priced.

The foundation

With today’s technology it is possible to tie carcass data to specific animals. For the most part, that doesn’t happen because www.canadiancattlemen.ca

the animal’s identification in the Canadian Livestock Tracking System is confidential.

The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association’s online Beef InfoXchange System (BIXS) is one new way to bridge that gap. It allows cow-calf producers, feedlots and packers to electronically share animal ID and production data as well as carcass information at their own discretion.

“BIXS is a game changer,” says Aalhus. “If producers buy in we can do a lot with marketing beef to extract value.”

Take grass-finished beef for example. It can be identified in the current grading system by its characteristic yellow fat from the beta-carotene in the forage. Producers can confirm this grade by uploading their production information to their BIXS records, and the beef could be marketed accordingly.

Other opportunities could appear if we verify and market social traits already inherent in Canadian production systems.

Some thought has been given to developing a greenhouse gas calculator in BIXS to qualify carcasses for a Canadian ecolabel.

Camera grading opens other possibilities seeing the device creates a digital image that can be conveniently stored and transmitted

“ BIXS is a game changer. If producers buy in we can do a lot with marketing beef to extract value.”

Jennifer Aalhus Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Continued on page 19

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

17

Your New Holland dealer has a lineup of tractors, hay tools and handling products that are SMART for the way you farm and the way you live.

to learn more, visit newhollandsmart.com/dairyandlivestock to see our products, locate your closest dealer and request additional information. Š2013 CNH America LLC. New Holland is a registered trademark of CNH America LLC. NHL06137872a

processing

Continued from page 17

electronically. The e+v Technology GmbH beef grading instrument was approved as an aid to manual grading in 2010. The camera calculates marbling score and lean meat yield. Then the grader evaluates ossification of the spine, fat colour, meat colour and muscle firmness, and has the final say in determining the grade.

Grading cameras capture more than what is required to determine marbling scores and yield grades. Researchers at Lacombe are developing dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) as a way to improve and monitor the accuracy of yield prediction algorithms that could be built into the grading camera software to more accurately predict total lean meat yield and saleable lean meat yield.

Total lean meat yield is an important measurement for improving production efficiencies, whereas saleable lean meat yield is important for marketing, says Aalhus.

The Canadian beef industry generally favours aligning Canadian grading standards with the U.S. While our marbling criteria are the same, there are significant differences in how we determine yield grade.

In Canada, only Canada A, AA, AAA or Prime quality carcasses are graded for yield based on a prediction of total lean meat yield using algorithms derived from a 1993 national beef cutout. The breakpoints for yield grades Canada 1, 2, and 3 are 59 per cent or greater, 54 to 58 per cent, and 53 per cent or less.

The U.S. has five yield grades and uses four prediction characteristics based on fat thickness, per cent kidney, pelvic and heart fat, hot carcass weight and rib-eye area. The yield algorithms predict saleable lean meat yield based on closely trimmed, boneless retail cuts from four primal cuts (round, loin, rib and chuck). The breakpoint percentages for the U.S. yield grades are: YG1 more than 52.3; YG2 52.3-50.0; YG3 50.047.7; YG4 47.7-45.4; and YG5, less than 45.4.

The e+v instrument is a stationary camera for use on moving rails in three plants in Canada: Cargill at High River and Guelph, and JBS at Brooks, but the industry is exploring ways to make camera grading available to plants without moving rails.

An e+v hot camera in also under development that could evaluate conformation of an entire carcass..

Up and coming

In another project Lacombe is developing near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) as an www.canadiancattlemen.ca

online technology for rapidly predicting the content of healthful fatty acids in beef loin muscle and backfat. In time this too could be incorporated into grading data to establish and verify a health claim.

NIRS also shows promise as a way to quickly segregate atypical (AT) dark-cutter carcasses from borderline (BL) dark-cutter carcasses. The ultimate goal would be to be move AT carcasses out of the deeply discounted dark-cutter (B4) grade and apply packaging strategies tested at Lacombe to brighten the surface of meat, making it indistinguishable from normal meat.

AT dark cutters produce meat that is darker than acceptable for the Canada A grades, yet the pH is in the normal range of 5.5 to 5.7. Research to date indicates ATs may result from changes to the oxygen consumption rates during chilling, which gives the meat a dark colour, while other characteristics, such as tenderness, are similar to normal carcasses.

Last year in Canada, 1.2 per cent of carcasses were dark cutters and various studies estimate one-quarter to one-half of those are salvageable ATs. BD dark-cutter carcasses have pH levels from 5.8 to 6.1 and toughness issues that ageing cannot fully address. Classic (CL) dark-cutter carcasses yield dark, firm, dry meat with pH above 6.0. The cause is thought to be pre-slaughter stress that reduces glycogen in muscle tissues. BD and AT carcasses can be visually distinguished from CL carcasses, but not from one another.

Tenderness is the trait with the most influence on eating satisfaction and the race to market guaranteed tenderness is on. Aalhus says Australia is implementing palatability critical control points and the U.S. is implementing a tenderness verification program based on manufacturing standards with a small number of carcasses from each lot tested for tenderness.

Manuel Juarez at Lacombe will be testing a tenderness system under Canadian conditions and for its compatibility with BIXS as part of a new three-year study. The system, developed by TenderSpec of Lincoln, Nebraska, and verified by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, uses hyperspectral imaging with algorithms to capture information from each pixel in an image across a broad wavelength range and gives a real-time prediction of beef tenderness at grading. Promising results have been obtained and the company is continuing to develop a system for commercial application. c

SMART CHOICES.

MORE SAVINGS.

Now’s the time to save with more choices, more options and more value on select New Holland tractors and hay & forage equipment built New Holland SMART.

VISIT YOUR LOCAL NEW HOLLAND DEALER TODAY AND ASK ABOUT our value bonanza!

www.newholland.com/na

©2013 CNH America LLC. New Holland is a registered trademark of CNH America LLC. NHL10138265FT

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

19

 prime cuts

By Steve Kay

cool mess continues

W

aiting for a court decision can be nervewracking. Getting a decision against you can be devastating. So it proved for opponents of USDA’s new country-of-origin labelling (COOL) rule. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Canadian Pork Council and seven other North American meat and livestock groups had asked a U.S. federal judge on August 27 to issue a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of the rule. But the judge turned down their request in a September 11 decision.

This almost guarantees that the mess around COOL will continue for at least another year. The plaintiffs say they will appeal the decision on the grounds that the judge applied the wrong legal requirements regarding the First Amendment issue and that of irreparable harm.

But their appeal is unlikely to succeed, based on U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s 76-page ruling. She categorically rejected all of the groups’ legal arguments and the claims of irreparable harm.

Not surprisingly, Jackson told the plaintiffs that their issues with the rule must be solved in Congress rather than the courts. This suggested the judge will not rule against COOL when the plaintiff ’s lawsuit comes to trial. Yet Congress has shown no inkling of being interested in amending the COOL law. It will not act in any way until after Canada and Mexico’s complaint against COOL to the World Trade Organization reaches its conclusion. This is not expected until late next year at the earliest.

Denial of the injunction means U.S. retailers will have to rush to re-label fresh meat products to bring their labels into compliance by November 23. That’s when USDA will start enforcing its rule, which was implemented May 23. Yet there remains the possibility that the WTO will eventually rule against the COOL rule.

This would mean that retailers and their suppliers will have spent hundreds of millions of dollars for nothing.

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in May said the new rule would have a midpoint cost of $123 million per year.

Of particular concern is whether retailers decide to simplify their labelling requirements by using only the label that reads “Born, Raised and Slaughtered in the United States.” Retailers have already expressed their alarm about the word “slaughtered” being on the label. The word must appear on all labels. For example, meat from Canadian animals imported for immediate slaughter must be labelled as “Born and Raised in

20

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

A North American view of the meat industry. Steve Kay is publisher and editor of Cattle Buyers Weekly

“ This almost guarantees that the mess around COOL will continue for at least another year.”

Canada, Slaughtered in the United States.” Beef from a Mexican-born animal finished in the U.S. must be labelled as “Born in Mexico, Raised and Slaughtered in the U.S.” No commingling of muscle cuts of mixed origins is allowed, which is likely to have the most impact on the U.S. beef supply.

All this raises questions about the effect on the price of U.S. beef and pork. AMS back in May estimated that the loss of commingling would add US $7.16 per head for cattle and US $1.79 per head for hogs at the packer/ processor level. Estimated costs at the retail level were US $0.050 per pound for beef and US $0.045 per pound for pork. But AMS did not evaluate the consequences of retailers moving to only a 100 per cent U.S.-origin label.

Should this occur, the price of U.S.-only muscle cuts would increase even more.

The most significant consequence for the Canadian livestock industry would be significantly reduced demand from U.S. cattle feeders and packers for Canadian cattle (and hogs). This would mean lower prices for those Canadian producers who use the U.S. as a marketing option. It’s too bad that a WTO final ruling is still more than a year away. c

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Set the stage for healthy lungs.

Provide cattle with the broadest coverage available against the most common and costly respiratory diseases with VISTA Once SQ, the only single-shot vaccine that combines both: TM

- an avirulent-live Mannheimia haemolytica and Pasteurella multocida culture, and - five modified-live viruses.

ETE THE MOST COMPL INE SINGLE-SHOT VACC AND

CTERIAL AGAINST BOTH BA PATHOGENS RY TO VIRAL RESPIRA

Talk to your veterinarian about one-of-a-kind VISTA Once SQ combination vaccine.

VISTA™ is a trademark of Intervet International B.V. Used under license.

Merck Animal Health, operating in Canada as Intervet Canada Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. MERCK is a trademark of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. Copyright © 2012 Intervet International B.V., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. All rights reserved.

Vista Once Ad - Canadian Cattlemen.indd 1

12-12-20 15:20

 manage m e n t

By Debbie Furber

The Quest for Profitability

L

ee Leachman no longer chases profitability, he selects for it.

Since forming Leachman Cattle of Colorado (LCoC) in 2003, Leachman has been working with BIO of Guelph, Ont., to customize economic indexes for the company’s herdsires, sale bulls and bulls in the semen and embryo programs.

LCoC’s breeding program has grown to include 35 co-operator herds totalling 6,500 cows, including his own ranch near Fort Collins. The company sells approximately 1,300 Angus, Red Angus, Stabilizer composite and Charolais bulls annually, largely to commercial cattlemen in the U.S. and Canada. Every bull is sold with a complete set of EPDs (expected progeny differences) and is indexed for profitability with the company’s trademarked $Profit EPD introduced in 2005.

EPDs are the best genetic tool available to predict performance of an animal’s offspring, but most EPDs measure outputs without figuring in cost, Leachman explains.

The Leachman family’s storied history in the beef industry shows a decade of little change in potential profitability when selecting genetics for growthier calves from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s. EPDs can help to find the outliers who can do it all, he says, but in general, as the growth rate of the calves increased, so too did cow size and feed intake, while fertility tapered downward. These three important profitability drivers on the ranch were slipping backward and the revenue from the larger calves wasn’t keeping up.

Economic indexes tie expenses and revenues to EPDs for traits of economic importance from birth through harvest into one bottom line number — net profit.

BIO runs the $Profit values based on trait EPDs and test information submitted by LCoC, explains BIO general manager Mike McMorris, adding that BIO has been working with bioeconomic modelling for the past 17 years. LCoC’s $Profit index started with a BIO index that has been refined over time to reflect the company’s goals for its breeding program alongside U.S. production and marketing realities.

On the income side, the $Profit index accounts for predicted sale weight, carcass merit, and percentage of calves weaned. On the expense side, it takes in cow-calf feed costs, feedlot feed cost and cost of replacements females and feeder calves. The program assumes that a bull produces 100 calves in its lifetime from average Angus-cross cows, 30 per cent replacement heifer retention, and retained ownership through to selling on a grid system. Though this isn’t the scenario for every ranch, it captures key drivers for overall profitability of a calf throughout its lifetime.

You could expect offspring from a bull with a $Profit of $9,000 to be more profitable than those from a bull with $Profit of $6,000, which is the average of all registered Angus bulls born in 2008. The difference is $3,000 per 100 calves, or $30 a calf. LCoC’s highest-indexing Angus bull to date posted a $Profit of $14,860.

Given that feed costs are a major expense at the cow-calf and

22

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

Lee Leachman

feedlot levels, LCoC has invested in testing more than 11,000 animals for feed intake and has developed EPDs for both feed intake and feed conversion (feed:gain) that go into the $Profit index.

The range in feed intake and feed conversion is striking, Leachman says, using the example of two bulls raised in the same pasture, weaned at the same time, with similar adjusted yearling weights, yet their dry-matter intake was 17 lbs. per day versus 42 lbs. LCoC’s most feed efficient bulls can reduce feed conversion by one pound of feed per pound of gain on their calves and produce replacement females that eat at least 10 per cent less.

The same goes for cows. He has seen academic research prove out on the ranch with big eaters consuming as much as two tons of dry matter a year more than other cows of the same weight, which in his books works out to $150 to $300 per cow per year.

The goal of LCoC’s breeding program is to produce cows that weigh less than 1,300 pounds, eat less than 20 pounds of dry matter per day and still wean calves that weigh more than 45 per cent of their mature body weight.

On the feedlot side, an analysis of the performance of 185,000 steers at Decatur County Feed Yard in Kansas showed that feed efficiency accounted for 43 per cent of the profitability of feeder cattle, grid value for 39 per cent, and carcass weight for18 per cent.

The study revealed a whopping $550 difference in profitability among steers entering the lot at 650 pounds. The bottom-end steers were worth $550 and the top-end steers were worth $1,100.

Feedlot operators know there is a significant difference in the

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

management

true value of feeder calves, Leachman says. Since true profitability isn’t clear until pen closeout, all they really have to go on is a hunch that some groups of calves will be more profitable than others. The difference between what they are willing to pay for calves they feel have the most profit potential and average calves hovers around seven cents a pound.

This hasn’t been much of an economic incentive for cow-calf producers who sell calves at weaning to be concerned about how profitable their calves will be for feeders and packers.

LCoC is teaming up with a third-party verification company, U.S. Verified Beef, to launch a mainstream value-based marketing scheme driven by the $Profit EPDs of a herd’s bull battery. Anyone can participate, he adds. This isn’t only for herds using Leachman bulls.

Commercial cattlemen will receive a certificate of genetic merit that uses a star system to rate groups of their calves on their

expected performance as feeder animals and carcass quality (average daily gain, yearling gain, feed:gain ratio, hot carcass weight, rib-eye area, per cent choice, high choice) and designates their value. Test runs have shown strong bidding when buyers have this information at hand.

Going back to the Leachman herd’s genetic trend for profit that had flat-lined for a decade, he found selecting for moderate growth and cow size, feed efficiency, and U.S. Choice carcass quality nudged the bottom line up by $2 per head annually for the next 15 years.

Now, with the ability to select for profit and prove the worth of feeder calves to the market, he says it’s not unrealistic to expect leaps of $15 a head every year going forward.

For more information about $Profit and LCoC’s program, visit www. leachman.com. c

here’s the beef Stay on top of the latest livestock news, market stats and weather with the Canadian Cattlemen mobile app.

It’s all the great content and regional insight you rely on, in a convenient digital format.

Stay effortlessly informed on all the news and data that matters to you.

 Set your local weather

Sponsored by

 Set subjects relevant to your ranch  Set notices on the futures contract

prices of your choice  FREE

to Download – scan the code to downloand now

 Available for Android, iPhone and Blackberry smartphones  Visit agreader.ca/cc to download the app

or text “cc” to 393939 to be sent the link.

Standard text messaging rates apply.

Part of the network

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

23

m a nag e m e n t

 records

BIO branches out LCoC’s $Profit index is one example of how BIO can work with producers and value chains to customize economic indexes to their needs, says BIO’s general manager Mike McMorris.

BIO, formed in 1993 to manage Ontario’s record-of-improvement programs, has recently branched out with three new services for the beef industry.

Its bioTrack livestock management program for cow-calf producers, feedlots, processors and other species is a web-based service. A new economic index called BIO$, rolled out in 2010, can be used across breeds to predict the genetic potential for profit of a bull’s or heifer’s offspring. A range of services for evaluating the potential of young bulls and heifers as breeding stock was launched this summer.

Using bioTrack, commercial and seedstock producers are able to store, sort and analyse as much detail as they want to capture on their animals for their own management purposes and to fulfill traceability requirements.

BIO has worked with the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association to ensure bioTrack clients can access carcass data as it becomes available through the Beef InfoXchange System.

A unique feature is BIO’s capacity to run across-breed comparisons (ABCs). These are EPDs with accuracy percentiles for birth weight, weaning gain, milk/mothering ability, post-weaning gain, yearling gain, backfat thickness, rib-eye area, per cent intramuscular fat, and scrotal circumference. Additionally, each trait is ranked as a percentile both within the breed and across breeds to allow comparison of purebred, crossbred and composite animals across herds.

The ABCs are derived from pedigree and whole herd data submitted by clients along with each animal’s on-test performance results and all related performance data in the database. In turn, the ABCs form the genetic basis of the BIO$ value for each animal.

The new BIO$ index replaced two original economic indexes (prime

24

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

plus and beef builder), introduced to the bull evaluation program in 1998, McMorris explains. Back then, 24 per cent of cattle finished in Ontario graded Canada AAA, the average carcass weight was 768 pounds, and the market was indicating a need for more marbling and lighter carcasses. By 2008, 55 per cent of Ontario finished cattle were grading Canada AAA, carcass weights had climbed to average 813 pounds, and there wasn’t much difference in value between Canada AA and Canada AAA carcasses. Discounts for over-size carcasses didn’t kick in until 950 pounds.

To better reflect today’s market, the BIO$ index is aimed at efficient, lean meat production of a Canada AA carcass between 775 and 900 pounds and is updated weekly.

BIO$ is an actual dollar value derived from a bioeconomic modelling program developed at the University of Guelph.

The program simulates the use of a bull on a herd of 30 average cows over two years, assuming a certain death loss and heifer retention rate with the remainder of the calves sold on the rail yielding 800-pound carcasses. It incorporates the bull’s ABC genetic evaluation, expected carcass revenue for the calves (factoring in premiums or discounts) based on current market information, and industry-average expenses to raise the calves from birth to harvest, to forecast the net profit from the sale of the bull’s progeny over that twoyear period.

You could expect progeny from a bull with a BIO$ value of $3,000 to be more profitable than those from a $2,000 bull. For quick reference, each bull’s BIO$ value is ranked from 1 to 99 (highest), both within-breed and across-breed.

The BIO$ index can be used to narrow down the field of potential herdsires. However, two bulls with very similar BIO$ values and rankings can have very different EPDs for individual traits, making it important to scrutinize each bull’s EPDs for traits of particular importance in your breeding program.

Young bulls and heifers have to go on test to evaluate performance indicators to obtain a BIO$ value, explains Scott

Mike McMorris Bothwell, who has been working with BIO’s genetic evaluations since their inception.

While there are several test centres in Ontario, they have become fewer and farther between in light of changes in the beef industry over the past decade. Cost may be a factor, but some producers like the convenience of developing their animals at home so prospective buyers have only one stop to see all of their bulls alongside their dams and sires. Sometimes, producers make arrangements with BIO to set up private on-farm evaluations.

Recognizing this trend and that many producers are a long way from test centres nowadays, BIO has designed alternatives to make long-distance testing an easier option. Producers can subscribe to bioTrack to submit whole herd reporting data and indicate the bulls for which they want BIO$ calculated.

A minimum level of performance reporting is required including a scrotal circumference, ultrasound of backfat and rib-eye area, and final weight.

Within this option you can choose to receive only the BIO$ values and rankings, or BIO$ and a complete report on each bull, or both plus posting them on BIO’s website for marketing purposes, Bothwell explains, adding that hits on this section of the website are notably higher from mid-December though April when commercial buyers are in the market.

For more information about BIO’s services go to www.biotrack.ca and select beef cattle from the menu on the left-hand side to find the bull and heifer reports from test centres for the past six years. The company has a field service team available to answer questions at 1-885-246-2333. c

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

 Holistic R a nc hi ng

By Don Campbell

PROFIT/PRODUCTION

T

he desire to be profitable is widespread and may even be universal. Despite this, in our culture there is often a blurring of the difference between profit and production. Listen to the talk at your local auction market. Do people discuss weights or profits? What you discuss is likely how you think. Profit often gets lost and our focus becomes production. This can occur without us even being aware of the change.

In last month’s column I discussed paradigm shifts and the tremendous positive influence they can have in our operations. This profit/production paradigm might offer you a great opportunity.

Do you operate with a profit or a production paradigm? Have you ever thought about it seriously? Do you think that there is a difference between the two paradigms?

The production paradigm says “have a high level of production and hope you are profitable.” This has been the prevailing paradigm for 50 years or more. It has been promoted by agribusiness, universities, extension and government. Unfortunately it also has the support of many of our mainstream cattle organizations.

The profit paradigm says “be sure you are profitable.” Operate at the level of production that is most likely to produce a profit. This paradigm is strongly supported by H M. It recognizes that profit is essential to sustain our businesses and to create an environment where our sons and daughters will want to return to the cattle business.

Let’s visit the auction market in your local community. We will look at three ranchers who have just sold their home-raised yearling steers.

Everybody is smiling. Prices are strong. In fact if my memory is correct yearling prices are at a record high. This seems reasonable as we are all well aware that the cost of production is and has been at a record high.

To compare these herds I will use prices that are current today for the 850-lb. steers and a $6 slide to price the other steers. rancher

weight

price

$/head

A

750

$1.51

$1,133

B

850

$1.45

$1,233

C

950

$1.39

$1,321

All three ranchers are smiling and happy. Each one has sold at a record-high price. Using the production paradigm it is clear that all three ranchers did well. Rancher C would appear to have done the best. We might even feel a little sorry for Rancher A who had such a light weight on his steers.

Now let’s look at this same scenario and analyze it using a profit paradigm. This time we will look at the gain produced and the grass consumed. We will use a 133-day grazing season (May 20 to Oct. 1).

The average daily gain is 1.8 pounds/head/day. Grass consumption will be three per cent of average body weight. start wt.

gain/ day

# of days

total gain

av. wt.

end wt.

510

1.8

133

240

630

750

610

1.8

133

240

730

850

710

1.8

133

240

830

950

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

grass consumption per head Average weight

lb. per day (3%)

lb. per season (133 days)

630

19

2,527

730

22

2,926

830

25

3,325

Now comes the interesting part. Let’s begin with Rancher B having enough grass for 100 head. Each steer consumes 2,926 lbs. of grass. His total grass consumption is 292,600 lbs. If all three ranchers had the same amount of grass Rancher A could run 115 steers (292,600/2,527). Rancher C could run 88 steers (292,600/3,325).

Now that we are utilizing the same amount of grass let’s look at the pounds of beef produced and the income per ranch.

Summary # Head

Sale weight

lb. Grass

lb. Beef

$ Head

$ Ranch

115

750

292,600

27,600

$1,133

$130,295

100

850

292,600

24,000

$1,233

$123,300

88

950

292,600

21,120

$1,321

$116,248

The number of head increases as the sale weight decreases. Grass consumption is the same on all three ranches. Beef production increases as sale weight decreases. The dollars per head increase as sale weight increases. The dollars per ranch increase as sale weight decreases.

Lighter yearlings on sale day tend to produce more beef and more total dollars utilizing the same resources. This is an easy point to overlook as we are all aware that in a set group of cattle the heavier steers bring more dollars per head. It is easy to think that we would be better off if our yearlings weighed more at sale time. This is true if you use a set stocking rate. When you stock to utilize your grass the lighterweight steers generate more beef and more total dollars.

When you produce home-raised yearlings you have the opportunity to target a certain selling weight. What yearling weight is most likely to be profitable in your operation? Would your profitability increase or decrease if you changed your yearling weight? Have you considered setting a target yearling weight and then matching your management to achieve that weight? Remember it is easy to get caught up in the production paradigm, it is more important and valuable to operate in the profit paradigm.

This article is just an example. If you are serious about profit don’t dispute my numbers. Use this template and your numbers. You may find the results interesting.

I hope you are profitable as we move into what looks like better times for the cow sector. Remember: “you never go broke making a profit.”

Happy trails. c Don Campbell ranches with his family at Meadow Lake, Sask., and teaches Holistic Management courses. He can be reached at 306-2366088 or doncampbell@sasktel.net.

C a t t l e m e n · o c t o b e r 2 0 1 3 25

 manage m e n t

By Sean McGrath

Accountable Choices How do you decide what to choose?

P

erhaps the best thing about running cows is that there is no right way to do it, and there are so many options that there is almost unlimited freedom in an operation. The downside is that there is no right way to do it, and that can create a hard-to-navigate maze of management choices.

Having a decision-making framework can greatly enhance your ability to sort through the options and take advantage of the tools available. It can also reveal untapped gems that can be profitably applied, rather than just throwing out the bathwater and the baby because the water is murky.

The role of management is to make operational decisions. The responsibility of management, whether it is a family or corporate farm or some combination, is to make informed decisions and implement them. Making good decisions is hard and accepting responsibility for bad ones and rectifying them is often harder.

The first step that I have found useful in good decision-making is figuring out how little I know and then improving the situation. It is hard to know what you don’t know, but if you learn to look for the clues and be honest with yourself, you may be surprised at what valuable information you find out. Generally speaking the chores you put off or hate doing tend to be areas of weakness. A personal example would be bookkeeping and managerial accounting. I love economics but I strongly dislike these tasks and have spent a lot of time and effort to rectify my skill set in this area (although it is still an area of personal weakness).

The second part of making good decisions requires knowing/understanding what you are doing now. In a lot of cases this is harder than the first step. We are often blinded by our business and our close attachment to our operations. It is hard to live at your work and see it objectively, and quite frankly a lot of the jobs involved in figuring out what you are doing really suck (see the previous accounting example). Why do you do what you do? Hopefully the reason is better than, “we have always done that.”

There are some great tools available to help with this second step. One example would be AGriProfit$ in Alberta. It is a great

26

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

way to engage outside help to discover your true costs of production and benchmark them against others in the industry. Another good tool is herd management software that allows tracking of inventory, health processes and production records. These software tools can provide objective reporting on productivity and costs. As beef operations can be incredibly complex, some good pasturemanagement tracking and tools can also be a great help. Knowing where you are, and understanding where you want to be are the two ends of the decision-making spectrum.

Knowing where you want to go could probably go into this list as step one. Having a vision for the future allows you to assess whether decisions moved you forward or backward on the path of progress. There are entire university departments dedicated to the issue of vision, but to simplify, if you don’t know where you are going it is guaranteed you will never arrive. Figuring this out is tough but worthwhile.

The final and hardest part of good decision-making is accountability. This is particularly difficult in some family situations where generational interactions and close familiarity are confounding factors. The example I would give is that very few folks ever get in a fist fight with the hired man, but a brother may be fair game (even past the age of 12). Accountability is really about accepting responsibility for decisions and the results. Establishing timelines and writing them down, keeping family informed as to general operations and dealing with hard issues while being considerate of feelings of others are all examples of accountability in action.

It’s great being accountable when we hit a home run, but some decisions result in the inevitable strikeout. That is when being accountable is the most important.

Accepting responsibility early allows us to rectify things and limit the damage (and even learn a little). If we follow the first three steps, then hopefully this final step is about celebrating success more often than not. c Sean McGrath is a producer and consulting geneticist from Vermilion, Alta. He can be reached through his website at www.roundrockranching.com/.

 cat t l e p ro duction

Sean’s short list of opportunities for beef cattle production: GRAZING MANAGEMENT There is tremendous opportunity for gains in productivity per acre, and reducing production costs through technologies such as planned/managed grazing systems, winter grazing and water systems.

Don’t pass up electric fencing booths or water pumping systems at the trade show.

GENETIC IMPROVEMENT Genetic improvement is a longterm task that requires vision, but it is a field that is developing rapidly and can result in significant gains in efficiency, suitability of the cow herd, and marketing opportunities. DNA technology rates high on the watch list, even if used for things as simple as parentage determination.

HEALTH PROGRAMS There are still a lot of cattle that leave the farm with compromised health when modern vaccination programs offer extremely low-cost solutions.

Take a look at pre-vac programs and other options such as BVD PI testing.

Visit your vet and take the On Farm Food Safety Training.

EG&S Environmental Goods and Services are one of the newer items under discussion, but pay attention. There are emerging programs such as the ALUS program currently operating in several provinces that will pay for your stewardship of ecological resources.

MARKETING Marketing is a key activity that can add value to a lot of the other things you do to improve your operation. There is nothing wrong with marketing calves in a consistent manner from year to year, but keep your eyes peeled for good new marketing tools. A couple of my favourites are C-TEAM, the CFBMC Farm Management online sessions, and the Ranching for Profit schools.

Regular industry conferences, tradeshows and meetings often have informative speakers or useful displays. Many lenders even have useful information days now, and many governments have dedicated staff that work hard at getting information out to producers.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

S ALL M SERIE

 PROCESS I NG

By Barb Scott

COMPOSTING SRMS WORKS FOR SMALL PROCESSORS

M

anaging disposal of specified risk materials (SRMs) in a satisfactory and cost-effective manner can be difficult for small- and medium-sized abattoirs. In the Maritimes and Northeastern United States static-pile composting is becoming a preferred option.

Larry Yerxa, who operates New Brunswick’s largest abattoir, is proud of his three acres of windrows. Static-pile composting is low tech, saves him money, has a low environmental impact, provides a means to dispose of blood as well as tissue and bone, and, perhaps best of all, allows him to deal with waste the same day it is created. “This is a tremendous system,” he says.

Mark Hutchinson, extension professor at University of Maine Cooperative Extension, worked closely with Yerxa and the New Brunswick Department of Agriculture in the design and set up of the compost facility at Yerxa’s Meats Inc. He has made several follow-up visits, providing further consultation. “Yerxa’s Meats Inc. has been a show case of how to environmentally handle slaughterhouse waste material,” he wrote in an email.

In response to the loss of rendering services in Maine, the Maine Compost Team developed protocols for composting slaughterhouse material through a series of research projects from 2001 to 2008. The research focused on the composting of all slaughterhouse material including SRM.

28

C AT T L E M E N · O C T O B E R 2 0 1 3

“Composting is an acceptable and preferred method of slaughterhouse waste management in Maine and most of the Northeastern U.S.,” he said.

It is catching on in Nova Scotia, too.

Many abattoirs are doing some modest form of composting. A total of 22 facilities compost their slaughterhouse waste, but only 13 of those involve SRM waste. The rest would process poultry, sheep or hogs.

Both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have developed guidelines for composting. Before creating its guidelines for static-pile composting, New Brunswick carried out a pilot project at Yerxa’s Meats to see if this method of waste disposal was an environmentally sustainable and economically viable alternative for the province’s industry.

Like farms, associated support infrastructure is often small-and medium-scale in the Maritimes. As SRM regulations prohibit cattle slaughterhouses from selling their compost they would have no way of recouping any major investment in equipment or structures.

All that is necessary for static-pile composting is enough appropriate space for the compost field and a tractor and bucket.

Even adding in the cost of wood chips which Yerxa uses in making the compost piles, this composting method has reduced his waste disposal expenses to $15 per animal, slightly less than the industry norm.

When strict federal regulations for the dis-

posal of SRMs were implemented following the BSE scare after 2003, he was faced with limited and costly choices. He had just built a new million-dollar facility less than half an hour outside Fredericton and could no longer send waste to a rendering plant that he had been using in Nova Scotia.

Yerxa processes roughly 2,000 animals a year, which represents about a third of the cull cattle produced annually in New Brunswick. He butchers 30-35 head a week as well as a few local hogs. He estimated it would cost a minimum of $1,000 a week to transport waste materials to an approved disposal site. Through provincial agricultural staff he learned about composting research taking place across the border in the neighbouring state of Maine and at Cornell University.

A pilot project was started in 2009 on his Scotch Settlement site with funding that was available at the time through a federal/provincial program. The province’s agriculture, environment and health departments joined efforts in monitoring the compost and test ing wells, concluding in 2011 that the process met all provincial environmental and health requirements.

When done properly, it reduces environmental risk, Hutchinson says.

Abattoir waste material is successfully composted by using an appropriate carbon feedstock such as wood shavings, or horse bedding — Yerxa uses wood chips — in amounts to create a absorptive bottom layer and a biofilter on the surface. Hutchinson

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

processing

said Yerxa’s Meats has been doing a very good job with this method. “This project continues to show that composting is a viable option for slaughterhouse waste including SRM.” Unlike New Brunswick, Maine does not have any restrictions on the use of slaughterhouse waste compost. Farmers there can use it as a soil amendment for crop production.

Recent research in Alberta has shown that composting is a viable method for the controlled disposal of SRM material, however Canadian federal regulations require that Yerxa must keep the compost on site.

He mixes finished compost with the wood chips in laying the base for a new windrow, which means he buys less wood chips, helping reduce his costs. “It is such an economical thing,” Yerxa said.

He covers the tissue and skeletal materials with a mix of wood chips and manure.

He finds there is little odour once the material is covered.

Gordon Price is the principal researcher for an Innovative Waste Management Research Program at Dalhousie University’s Faculty of Agriculture. He has been

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

conducting workshops for farm owners and abattoirs and is instituting a program in waste management to help a number of groups within the agricultural sector deal with their specific disposal issues.

Generally speaking, he too, sees managing SRM on site as a good approach for smallto medium-size operations. Through the research conducted at Dalhousie on SRM, Dr. Price’s team has shown that the material is highly degradable and manageable on-farm. Other methods such as stockpiling or burial of the waste can lead to odour problems, contamination, or birds and animals carrying of bits of tissue and spreading pathogens, or leaching contaminants into the surrounding groundwater. Composting creates a stabilized material that won’t attract wildlife and provides a mechanism to deal with traditional pathogens, Price explained.

Nova Scotia slaughterhouse operators are encouraged to either attend the special workshops at Dalhousie University or contact Dr. Price for technical support.

Static-pile composting can be used on farms to dispose of individual dead animals in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. c

“ This is a tremendous system.”

Larry Yerxa Yerxa Meats, Scotch Settlement, N.B.

C at t l e m e n · o c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

29

 straigh t f ro m t h e h i p

By Brenda Schoepp

Carcass and Community

I

have watched with utter frustration as the beef industry continues to wallow in the status quo. Packers pay minimal, cow-calf producers feel victimized and cattle feeders are after 10 years of volatility, closing feedlot pens. In the empty alley we can see the dusty footprints of someone who used to work there, and at the doors of farmhouses, tearful mothers wave goodbye to children who have left the farm.

There are of course complex reasons behind economic and social change or collapse. They may seem rather overwhelming but like all gigantic tasks, the problem is often simply solved or reversed. In Canada, we are the privileged and have an abundance of choice. When it comes to beef there is simply one North American truth and that is that we are producing more beef than ever with the smallest cow herd in 60 years. Genetic improvement most certainly played a part but when we rewind the tape, the packer had a long-term vision that is putting beef in his cooler today. As a young woman, I sold 2,500 fed cattle a year on a rail grade basis. The information was always returned on individual animals and as a feedlot manager, this allowed me to work with ownership and staff to improve the outcome on the line.

As the industry progressed and wealth was more assured, the packers introduced live weight sales. It was music to a feeders ears and the money was based on the weight right out of the pen. The information gap that was created at that time has never been recovered.

Databases that the processor had privy to allow for that industry to comfortably offer a grid system of selling. As they had the historical carcass information on the feedlot, it was assured that the negotiated grid would lean toward a greater penalty for discounts. I argued at the time that the grid was packer driven and could never fully compliment the cattle feeder. That holds true to this day and very few cattle feeders fully appreciate the power of grid buying to the packer.

As the story unfolds, weight and grade restrictions kept the cattle neatly within specific production parameters. The discount on heavy carcasses was a long-term revenue stream for packers and clearly underappreciated by industry. With the temptation of American markets so close to us, human nature always tried to beat them in their own game, often at the cost of an overweight carcass that stayed home at discount.

Today, those carcass weight restrictions have been literally erased.

Again, the packer has ensured adequate supply for the box by allowing cattle feeders to fill the holes. This has nothing to do with cattle inventory; the lack of inventory is highly unlikely to ever rally a fedcattle market — although a drop in production might. At this point, with little discipline in feeding and a grain market that has a spongy floor, we are unlikely to see much improvement in fed-cattle prices.

Only when packers run out of commercial beef will they be forced to pay for fed product.

Seems like a big issue. As folks in the coffee shop might say — one of the packers using all his American muscle to choke Canadian markets. I would disagree. This is good business with a solid strategy that is proactive to future needs. A strategy that the cattle business follows like a ship to the rocks!

30

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

The solution to the current fed-cattle market is simple. In the absence of carcass weight production parameters, shorting the market is ideally the best way to support it. A handy weight carcass has a domino effect. Less carcass weight equates to more carcasses required and that fills empty pens. Less carcass weight equates to more feeder cattle required and that generates interest in cows.

More cows generate supporting business and intergenerational interest in the business. Less carcass weight supports startup farms and small herds through the need for the cattle. And smaller cuts from these carcasses are easier to sell and trade. Remember too that there is an abundance of proof that supports the lack of tenderness in carcasses where implant stacking has occurred. A large carcass without intervention may be expensive to take to current weights — but we know little about the carcass characteristics and the economic advantage of selling that animal younger and at several hundred pounds lighter.

ess carcass weight equates L to more carcasses and more feeder cattle required and that generates interest in cows

Oversimplified? Not really. It goes back to the simple principle of supply and demand. Assured production was achieved by access to product in a larger package for less money. Fewer primary product units (fed cattle) at less weight allow the packer an opportunity to stretch on the payment side. Painful I know but the benefits to the industry and to trade far outweigh the current practise. If we want our young folks to stay on the farm we have to allow them creative and independent thought. That may mean challenging the status quo. If we want vibrant communities where almost everyone has a job and a home we must take charge in being part of the solution.

If Canadians really want to be known on the international scene, they have to open the doors for small and alternative producers who fill a niche and have the confidence in the long-term viability of the market to value add. We have a choice. c Brenda Schoepp is a Nuffield Scholar who travels extensively exploring agriculture and meeting the people, who feed, clothe and educate our world. A motivating speaker and mentor she works with young entrepreneurs across Canada and is the founder of Women in Search of Excellence. She can be contacted through her website www.brendaschoepp.com. All rights reserved.

Brenda Schoepp 2013

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Search for ag news and stories from the sources you trust.

Network Nobody has more daily news and up-to-the-minute ag information than the AgCanada Network.

Our respected titles cover all aspects of the industry, with award-winning, in-depth local, national and international coverage.

SEARCH

Look for the AgCanada Network Search button on the top right of the AgCanada.com homepage

Weather you’re looking for a comprehensive article on a specific crop, or a recipe for muffins, start your search at the AgCanada Network.

AgCanada.com Network Search Search news. Read stories. Find insight.

 grazing

By Debbie Furber

Fencing Goes 3D

Peace country ranchers give it a favourable grade as a cheaper alternative to keeping out deer, moose and maybe even elk

A

dding an electrified third dimension to fences around feed stacks, silage bags, grain bags, corrals and swath grazing fields is deterring big game from helping themselves to feed in British Columbia’s Peace region.

The concept of adding depth to a fence is based on the knowledge that ungulates have poor depth perception, so they tend to be suspicious when approaching these odd-looking obstructions and slow down to check it out, explains Talon Johnson, coordinator of the 3D fencing project organized by the Peace River Forage Association of British Columbia.

An initial project with producer demonstration sites ran through the winters of 2010 and 2011. Snowfall amounts the second winter were relatively low and didn’t give the fences a real test in this area that typically sees long, cold winters with heavy, drifted snow pack. The wheels are in motion to start the second phase this fall.

A research review turned up several designs for 3D fencing, which is a system designed to keep game out of market gardens and orchards. To protect feed supplies, producers in the Peace region generally construct heavy-duty woven-wire mesh fences, sometimes with two or three strands of smooth wire across the top to create a 10-foot high compound for a stackyard.

These fences are very effective, but costly to build and don’t offer flexibility in the location of where feed can be stored.

All the producers who participated in the 3D fencing project used the two-fence design, modifying it to suit their needs and existing infrastructure. Most constructed a new single-strand, high-tensile electric fence around the outside of an existing fence or corral. One producer renovated an existing fence for the electric wire and built a new inside fence.

“The thing to remember is that you are creating a psychological barrier, not a physical barrier like a woven mesh wildlife fence does,” Johnson explains. “Ungulates will be testing it all the time, so the outside fence has to be electrified and it has to be hot.

The animal has to see the fence, slow down, check it out and get a shock.”

A zap on the nose should be enough

32

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

discouragement to send it off in another direction. Oftentimes they will be following the fence line looking for a way to get in or around it, so the electric wire has to be intact all of the way around the inside fence.

Three feet is the magic number for spacing between the outside and inside fences. Producers have noticed that as little as six inches one way or the other can result in leakage.

Ungulates see a narrowing as an opportunity to jump both fences. A widening appears to be a weak spot where they can get between the two fences and jump the inside fence.

“ The thing to remember is that you are creating a psychological barrier, not a physical barrier.” talon johnson co-ordinator of the 3d fencing project

“So far, we have been observing game trail patterns along the fences to learn how they deal with the obstacle,” Johnson says.

“This winter, we will also install trail cameras to monitor problem spots. When animals do decide to try the fence, we want to see how they do it so we have a better idea of how we can prevent it and make sure wildlife have a negative experience right away.”

One potential reason for leakage is the

insulating effect of heavy snow cover and heavy winter hair coats. It could be that an animal tries to duck under or go over the wire and gets a shock somewhere behind the head area, in which case research shows that the shock would propel it through the wire instead of causing it to turn back. Once one animal breeches the fence, others are sure to follow.

Another reason could be that an animal doesn’t stop before leaping. Some producers will be experimenting with baiting the outside fence with scent caps, such as molasses-covered tinfoil or apples to encourage wildlife to stop and make sure their first experience touching a hot wire isn’t so welcoming.

Initial worries about heavy snowfall causing havoc with the electric wire were put to rest by placing a second set of insulators on the posts to move the wire up as needed.

One producer used sliding ABS pipe sleeves over small posts to adjust the wire to any height anywhere along the fence line.

Wooden posts, Powerflex permanent fibreglass posts and temporary pigtail posts were all tried with success as long as the fence was properly braced at the corners, each side of the gates, and elsewhere as needed to maintain a height of at least 34 inches above the ground or snow pack. An advantage of temporary-style fences is that they can be completely removed during the summer to let livestock graze right up to the inside fence, eliminating a stockpile of forage that may attract wildlife, hold the snow, or short the electric fence.

Everyone staggered placement of the posts in the outside fence with those of the inside fence to improve visibility of the fence.

The recommended height of four feet for the top wire or rail of the inside fence as suggested in some of the literature proved to be too low. Adding another six to 12 inches to hold another wire was accomplished by fastening two-by-four extensions to the top of existing wooden posts or, in the case of one producer who used corral panels as the inside fence, wiring portable metal posts to the panels at intervals.

As with any fence, gates tend to be a weak spot and most producers found that the best solution was to run the outside electric

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

 3D fenci ng ex a m p l es

1

BICKFORD FARMS 3-D fence to protect grain bags (puncturing of bags)

2

BURTON KABZEM 3D fence corner — built around a 20-ac. winter feeding area

3

RAINEY RANCH 3D fence for a stackyard over one km from their house

4

3D fence built using existing fenceline

5

MICHAEL NIMITZ 3D fence with adjustable ABS pipe sleeves for increasing snow height

1

4

fence straight past the gate of the existing fence, even though it meant another set of handles to deal with when feeding the hay.

Producer confidence in the effectiveness of a single strand of electric wire to keep wildlife out of valuable feed continues to grow with experience. It has successfully altered deer and moose traffic patterns, but not yet been truly tested by a herd of elk.

As far as mitigating feed and fence damage, producers rated the 3D fence second to the woven wire wildlife fence, largely because a 3D fence won’t withstand as much wildlife pressure and is easier to penetrate if the fencer isn’t working properly. Therefore, the maintenance level was rated higher than that for a woven-wire mesh fence. On the other hand, when repairs do need to be made, a 3D fence is an easier fix.

Johnson says the big draw for the twofence system was its economy given that many producers already had existing fences of some type in place. Costs, including labour to install a new outside electric fence, ranged from 54 cents to $5 per linear foot.

The two-fence system is unique as far as wildlife fences go because it is relatively portable, she adds. Both the inside and outside fences can be constructed with temporary fencing supplies, giving producers options to store feed and feed in various locations.

It’s also practical for fencing large areas for swath and bale grazing and would be effective for protecting summer pastures as well.

“There used to be a lot of swath grazing done in this area until about 15 years ago,” www.canadiancattlemen.ca

2

3

5

Johnson says. That’s when the increasing elk population made it too risky to leave feed unprotected. Some members of the forage association were instrumental in starting to find ways to deal with the issue and they did have success on some fronts, such as getting an elk hunting season. Since then, many producers have given up on trying new feeding ideas and ways to prevent wildlife damage.

Elk are particularly threatening because they are large animals, move in herds of 10 to 20 animals, and stampede if spooked, taking out lots of fences along the way. Moose stick to small family groups. Deer are an ongoing nuisance because they are small and quite nimble at leaping fences, not to mention climbing on top of bales and grain bags.

Wildlife can destroy feed in no time by breaking down the bales and pawing through swaths leaving both subject to filling with drifting snow and ice buildup.

Regardless of how much they eat, defecating and urinating on feed makes it unpalatable to livestock.

Hunting got a so-so rating from producers as a mitigation measure. Its success depends on being able to get hunters when needed, hunters’ respect for the property, where limited-entry hunts are allowed, and how long the hunters keep pressure on the wildlife. One producer organizes hunters to come in from August 10 all of the way through to February 28.

The top-rated mitigation measures producers had tried before 3D fencing were constructing stackyards with woven-wire mesh fence surrounds, putting feed out every day

or second day to limit the amount of feed available to wildlife, and moving the feeding area close to the main yard. Installing motion sensor lights and propane bangers only worked for a short time because wildlife became desensitized. Regardless of how tightly the hay was stacked, even with poorquality bales placed around the outside, wildlife wasn’t deterred.

All-in-all, participating producers felt the two-fence 3D design worked well. They will continue to monitor and tweak their systems throughout phase two, try two alternative 3D fence designs, and investigate the best method of setting up a 3D fence in the middle of winter.

In reality, 3D fencing is giving producers new opportunities to implement extended feeding systems that have proven to be more economical and beneficial to the land and forage production than placing bales out every few days in the same area every year.

Johnson says it’s encouraging to see how the 3D fencing project has revived interest in trying to prevent wildlife damage to stored feed in the Peace region and beyond. She is working with producers in the Smithers and Cranbrook areas to set up pilot projects and has fielded enquiries for information from cattlemen’s, forage and watershed groups in other parts of the province, Alberta, and Saskatchewan.

Fact sheets on the 3D fencing project and other wildlife mitigation strategies are available at www.peaceforage.bc.ca, or call Johnson at 250-219-3944. c

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

33

 manage m e n t

By Roy Lewis DVM

HOW TO ABORT HEIFERS Or induce cows to calve

R

emoving unwanted pregnancies or inducing cows to calve are two management options producers may face from time to time. I will go over protocols that have worked for me but caution you to check with your veterinarian first. The drugs are all under prescription and dosages can vary somewhat based on personal preference.

The most common time when it is necessary to induce abortions is with young feedlot heifers. Heifers that calve in the feedlot often suffer dystocias, retained placentas, or metritis over and above the huge weight loss and stress associated with parturition.

Add to that, there is a drop in feed efficiency in the last trimester of pregnancy and you take a great decrease in price when marketing heifer calves showing signs of advanced pregnancy.

It is generally advisable to have your veterinarian preg check a few head to see what the pregnancy rate is. If it is a small number it is more economical to preg check the whole pen and just abort the pregnant ones. If they are short-keeps only the heavily pregnant ones need be aborted.

If a high percentage of the test group (upwards of 30 per cent) are pregnant it may make economic sense to mass-treat the pen.

If a producer calves early and leaves the bulls out late older, larger replacement heifer calves should be palpated to ensure they are open. Your management can definitely get screwed up if just before breeding you see some of your top replacement heifers starting to bag up. The C-section rate with these is high, as much as a quarter of them in my experience. If they calve successfully, milk production is generally low and their adult size becomes stunted.

If the heifers are not noticed until they are bagging up it is better to let them calve at this late a stage. Aborting them with such a mature calf inside can still lead to dystocias, retained placentas and of course a dead calf to boot. As a result I won’t abort anything over seven months pregnant unless the owner insists. The good news is these heifers are highly fertile and will often breed back.

34

C at t l e m e n · o c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

The length of gestation is critical as to what medications are prescribed to induce abortions. Check with your veterinarian as to his exact protocol. I like to use 60 days pregnancy as my critical time other vets use 90 or 120 days pregnant. Before 60 days just a prostaglandin is used. After 60 days a prostaglandin and dexamethasone (25 mg) is used to successfully abort heifers (two separate shots). They must not be on any MGA or other progesterone-type product, as this will greatly interfere with abortion. At the very least it is imperative that they not be on MGA for seven to 10 days before and after the abortion shots.

MGA is megesterol acetate and it prevents heifers from cycling. Always use a long 1-1/2 inch needle to be sure you reach the muscle. Leaving product in the fat or subcutis is detrimental to its effectiveness.

“ The most common time when it is necessary to induce abortions is with young feedlot heifers.”

If done correctly the fetus will generally be aborted two to five days after the injection. It is best to mark the pregnant heifers you are aborting or segregate them.

Occasionally even a four-month fetus will become stuck in the pelvis and need to be pulled out. Retained placentas may need to be treated and keep in mind that with the stress of calving pneumona is a possibility, especially in the feedlot.

Dose reduction has been researched in smaller feedlot heifers (<1,000 lbs.) and has been very successful. If smaller heifers are to be aborted the prostaglandin dosage can be reduced by 25 per cent. The dosage of dexamethasone has been tried at 10 mg in this combination with good success as well.

As long as we breed cattle, unwanted pregnancies will occur. If you notice a heifer being bred by mistake, the ideal time to abort is 10 to 14 days after breeding.

Implanting of the egg has just occurred and the heifer will simply come into heat again.

You can then observe her for heat to be sure the shot has been successful.

Inducing cows to calve is initiated for several reasons. Dairy heifers with severe udder edema, impacted cows or owners wishing to more closely observe calving because of weather conditions are a few reasons why veterinarians recommend that a cow be induced. There have been several times in my veterinary career where we have induced calving in cows that are failing for one reason or another and at least salvaged a live calf.

The same combination of two drugs is used, provided you are sure the cow is within a minimum two weeks of her calving date. My rule of thumb is to first check to see that good-quality colostrum (thick and creamy) is present in the udder. If it is she is within this time frame and can be induced. Calving will be a normal process and occur 30 to 36 hours after the injection unless she calves on her own before this.

Therefore inducing her late at night will generally permit calving during the day.

Each situation has its own unique set of circumstances. Use caution and definitely consult with your veterinarian. This is where you will need to purchase the prescription drugs anyway. Right on the label of all prostaglandins is the warning to keep them away from women, especially those of childbearing age. It is a potent drug so do not let your wife, girlfriend or any female handle the product if possible. This applies to anyone with respiratory problems as well.

Use these products wisely as a way to control these unwanted pregnancies in your operation or induce calving to possibly avoid medical problems. c Roy Lewis is a Westock, Alta.-based veterinarian specializing in large-animal practice. He is also a part-time technical services vet for Merck Animal Health.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

CELEBRATING

40 YEARS

OF BEEF BUSINESS

EXCELLENCE.

FEATURING: • OVER 15 BREEDS REPRESENTED • 8 NATIONAL SHOWS • EXPANDED COMMERCIAL PROGRAM, THE YARDS AT NORTHLANDS • HEADLINER SHOW & SALE • ALBERTA SUPREME • AND MUCH MORE! This is a great opportunity to showcase your operation to thousands of potential buyers!

Entries open September 1, 2013. Enter online at farmfairinternational.com. #FFI40

 CCA repo rts

By Martin Unrau

Fighting for market access

R

emoving market access barriers for Canadian cattle and beef remains a top priority of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA).

There is no justification for non-scientific trade barriers and it is time for all trading partners to live up to their obligations as established by global authorities, including the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the United Nations’ food standards body, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

At the CCA semi-annual meeting in August, the board renewed a resolution to direct the Government of Canada to ensure that the basis for any further market openings be in conformity with the OIE standard (access for all live cattle and all beef from cattle of all ages). For markets that are already partially open, the government should seek to achieve full access based on such OIE standard. The CCA supports partial market openings in circumstances where the U.S. has already obtained or will obtain a partial opening and Canada has an opportunity to regain parity with the U.S. in that market, or the government of an importing country agrees to a commercially meaningful partial opening as a step towards full OIE compliance.

Market access was on the agenda at the recent Five Nations Beef Alliance (FNBA) conference in Cairns, Australia, with the focus on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. The key action item to come out of the FNBA was the signing of a position statement on the TPP negotiations. The agreed statement calls for a comprehensive TPP agreement without product exclusions, especially in agriculture, and calls for all tariffs and other market access barriers to be eliminated in the TPP region. The FNBA position on TPP mirrors similar statements recently approved by agriculture groups in New Zealand and the U.S. Japan of course is part of the TPP negotiations. In February, Japan expanded its market access to accept Canadian beef from under-30-month (UTM) cattle, an outcome long sought by the CCA. The CCA also strongly encourages a Japan-Canada Economic Partnership Agreement, which would provide full tariff-free access for Canadian beef in alignment with CCA goals.

The ractopamine bans instituted by Russia and China are an example of a non-science-based trade barrier. The CCA will continue efforts to have international markets recognize the Codex maximum residue limits (MRL) ruling for ractopamine, a cattle and hog feed ingredient.

This important development removed any justification for a non-scientific trade irritant.

On the U.S. mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL) front, the CCA and its coalition partners filed a notice of appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit following the September 11 decision by the U.S. District Court to deny a prelimi-

36

C at t l e m e n · o c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

nary injunction (PI) to block the implementation of the amended U.S. COOL regulation. A schedule was filed along with the notice of appeal and at time of writing the CCA/coalition was awaiting approval from the court on the proposed briefing dates.

Unless reversed the district court ruling will allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to proceed to fully implement and enforce the May 23 COOL rule. The coalition’s PI motion argued that if the May 23 rule were to be enforced as USDA plans to do in November, it would cause irreparable harm to the U.S. meat and livestock industry and that the impacts are not in the public interest.

As readers are likely aware, the CCA is part of a coalition of meat and livestock organizations in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico that filed a lawsuit on July 8 seeking to strike down the USDA May 23 revision to the COOL regulation.

As part of that lawsuit, on July 22, the coalition filed the PI motion with the Court to block implementation of the COOL regulation prior to the resolution of the lawsuit.

Coalition partners include the American Association of Meat Processors, American Meat Institute, Canadian Pork Council, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, North American Meat Association, Southwest Meat Association, and Mexico’s National Confederation of Livestock Organizations.

COOL discrimination has cost Canadian cattle producers around $640 million per year since COOL was implemented in late 2008. USDA’s May 23 regulatory change is expected to necessitate additional segregation which will nearly double the impact of COOL from the current $25 to $40 per head.

The CCA will continue to work with the Government of Canada to aggressively challenge these unfair trade practices that discriminate against Canadian live cattle and hogs at the World Trade Organization (WTO) this month.

In August, the CCA welcomed the $14 million in funding for the Beef Cattle Industry Science Cluster under Growing Forward 2 announced by Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Gerry Ritz. Combined with industry contributions, the Cluster will receive a total of $20 million in funding to support strategic research that will drive the efficiencies that enable producers to realize continuous improvements, while enhancing overall sector sustainability and improving industry competitiveness.

The research in this Cluster is focused on the broad categories of beef quality and safety, animal health and welfare, feed production, and environmental sustainability. The Beef Cluster is managed by the Beef Cattle Research Council (BCRC), which provided the majority of the industry contributions through its National Checkoff research allocation. Direct investments from provincial beef industry groups also contributed to this research effort. c

Martin Unrau is president of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

BUILDING TRUST IN CANADIAN BEEF

Beef biosecurity: Keep it simple Halt disease at the farm gate

Few places in this world are more hospitable than Canada’s beef operations. Each season beef farmers and ranchers welcome visitors to see their industry first hand. Feedlots work hard to share their knowledge with industry groups, often with an initiation to visit personally.

The bottom line is that what’s good for industry relations isn’t always so good for disease control. With every busload of industry visitors, every carload of customers, friends, relatives and international travellers, comes the threat of disease spread.

At an industry level that translates into a renewed interest in beef biosecurity. In fact some people think biosecurity is actually a government program but it’s not.

At a farm level, this boils down to simple, straightforward strategies to protect herd health status and prevent disease from gaining a foothold. Much of this is grounded in common sense.

Understand risk

A key is to be able to identify the highest-risk visitors to the farm or feedlot. Low-risk visitors include urban dwellers who have no livestock contact. Medium-risk visitors would include people who may visit farms regularly but have no contact with livestock.

High-risk visitors include anyone with regular contact with livestock, such as veterinarians, livestock haulers, and those coming from abroad.

Question visitors ahead of time

Don’t hesitate to ask visitors if they are from or have been outside Canada and the U.S. in the previous two weeks.

Keep disinfectant available, and note some products kill viruses whereas not all will.

Ask if they have been on a farm or ranch or been exposed to livestock from outside North America in the past two weeks Ask if they have been exposed to a situation which involves a reportable animal health problem in the past six months.

If they answer yes to any of the above, contact your vet.

Keep basic cleaning tools handy, such as a scrub brush, tub and bleach or disinfectant.

Have visitors leave their name and contact information in a visitors’ log. Consider providing a pair of boots to wear upon arrival.

When you travel

If you travel yourself, take precautions before you visit other countries and when returning.

Shower before you return, and scrub and disinfect footwear. Upon returning wash all clothes and dry on high heat.

Don’t travel with footwear normally used around the farm.

Send outdoor wear to the dry cleaner. And

wipe personal items such as rings, watches, glasses, cameras, smartphones and suitcase exteriors with a solution of vinegar or bleach.

Keep away from livestock including your own for 24 to 72 hours after you return.

VBP can help

VBP has components that can assist onfarm biosecurity efforts. That includes animal health treatment/vaccination records, and a record of animals sold, purchased or died.

Vaccination programs are important.

Cow-calf producers should be thinking carefully about herd health status when sourcing replacements.

More information

Canada now has a biosecurity standard for beef cattle, and the industry will be developing specific information to apply on farm.

Don’t hesitate to ask for the latest. It’s a small investment with potentially big returns.

DEVELOPED BY PRODUCERS. DEVELOPED FOR CONSUMERS

One implant. That’s it. You’re done!

Avoid the inconvenience and stress of re-implanting.

Do it right. Do it once.

Merck Animal Health, operating in Canada as Intervet Canada Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. MERCK is a trademark of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. Copyright © 2011 Intervet International B.V., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. All rights reserved.

For more information, talk to your veterinarian or call our technical service at 1-866-683-7838.

® Registered trademark of Intervet International B.V. Used under license.

REV-XS Canadian Cattlemen QSHere.indd 1

13-07-24 14:49

 grazing

By Steve Kenyon

Bale Grazing — Keep it Cheap!

B

ale grazing is no longer just for the innovators or the early adopters. It is becoming more and more common to see a field of bales placed out in a pasture for winter feeding. I tip my hat to all of you that have moved to a better way of feeding. For those of you that have not tried it, why? Is it because you can’t get past the “wasted feed” mindset? I challenge you to crunch some numbers including labour and equipment. It’s a no brainer.

But keep it cheap!

What is bale grazing? It is a form of winter feeding but with one big difference. We graze the bales. All of our winter hay supply is placed out in a pasture in a checkerboard pattern. We remove all the twines, and ration off the feed throughout the winter with an electric fence. There is a huge cost saving behind bale grazing due to the reduced labour and equipment costs. As for “feed waste”? I would rather waste 10 or 15 cents per head per day on “wasted feed” than I would burning up 50 cents per head per day in machinery and labour costs. I have had many producers thank me for introducing them to bale grazing. The most common remark is, “I will never go back to traditional feeding.” The issue here is most producers do not know their own labour and machinery costs. To our detriment, we are taught as farmers to only see cash costs.

Bale grazing is a very economical way to feed livestock during the winter months. But, keep it cheap! I have seen a lot of people who

38

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

bale graze but still put too much labour and equipment into it. If you try to reproduce bale grazing without understanding the economics of it, you won’t get all the benefits out of it that you could. How does it work? The key is to handle the bales as little as possible.

At Greener Pastures, the hay is delivered out to my pasture and if possible, the truck does most of the spreading for me. I might have to spread them or tip them but I try not to handle them at all. I use a self-unloading truck to deliver my hay. If you have to touch the bales more than once with a piece of equipment, it’s too much. If trucking with a self-unloading truck does not work for you, then unload them out in your pasture and place them right off the truck. That’s it! Only touch them once. But what if you have not grazed that paddock yet? Don’t worry about it. They will graze the pasture through the snow while they graze the bales. Most of my labour is done in the fall when the weather is nice. Bales are set and the twines are removed before they are frozen. Then for the rest of the winter, instead of going out with a tractor and feeding for an hour every day in the winter, I spend about an hour a week moving an electric fence on foot.

I know of some producers that handle the bales way too many times to keep bale grazing economical. Here is a scenario of what not to do. I have seen producers unload the hay off the trucks into the hay yard or on the edge of a field. Then they load them up again and haul them out to the pasture. Next, they unload them again and place the bales in the

field. And one more time, they use a tractor to pick them up allowing someone to remove the twine or net wrapping. How many times did you touch each bale with a piece of equipment? Each time you touch a bale it costs you money! Only touch the bales once!

If done right, bale grazing is a very economical way of feeding because it reduces the labour and equipment cost compared to traditional feeding. It adds up to be a huge cost savings over a winter; the bigger the herd, the more the savings. Even add in the “wasted feed” to that cost. Another 15 cents per head per day and it is still more economical to bale graze than to start a tractor every day. Don’t worry about the “wasted feed.” Extra residue left on the ground in the right place adds a great deal of fertility to the soil. Not only does it add fertility, it improves water-holding capacity, reduces erosion and it protects the soil from compaction. So this “wasted hay” is not a waste at all. It is a tremendous soil improvement that continues to pay you back for years to come. Look at it as a long-term investment to your soil. I can double the production of a piece of land by bale grazing on it. The growth the following year is incredible.

Bale grazing works great. It saves you time and money; an easy sell to any producer.

You just need to understand the economics behind it and then it is a no brainer. c Steve Kenyon runs Greener Pastures Ranching Ltd. in Busby, Alta., www. greenerpasturesranching.com, 780-307-6500, email skenyon@greenerpasturesranching.com.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

 vet aDv i c e

ERGOT POISONING

R

esurgence of an ancient fungus in Prairie grains that causes disease in animals is a reminder of earlier times, a backslide to the Middle Ages and before where it often changed how people lived and ate. Precipitated by cool, wet conditions through early stages of the growing season, ergot (Claviceps purpurea) is expected to be a significant contaminant of grass and cereal crops in 2013. A prolonged flowering period for grasses and cereals this year heightened the ergot risk. Today, ergot is a rare human health issue, but it is not an infrequent visitor to livestock operations.

Ergot thrives under cool, damp weather conditions infecting cereal grains at the flowering stage. The fungus produces a number of toxins that reduce the grain’s end-use desirability. Because of its toxicity, tolerances for ergot are tight, for example: .01 per cent (one ergot body per 10,00 wheat kernels, or approximately one litre of grain) in No. 1 Canada Western Red Spring wheat, and .04 per cent in No. 3 Canada Western Red Spring wheat. The Canadian Grain Commission reported in 2011 that upwards of 20 per cent of the wheat crops grown in Western Canada were infected to some degree by ergot. Last year, close to 30 per cent of the hard red spring wheat in Alberta was downgraded due to ergot. Prevalence varies by region and climate.

Ergot affects many wild and cultivated grasses, including many of our small-grain crops. It is most common in rye and triticale.

The parasitic fungus (Claviceps) starts damaging crops in the field, replacing one or more kernels in a mature grain head with a hard, dark ergot body. Ergot may be a concern in forage grasses grown for seed production. Grains such as wheat and barley are less likely to become infected, but may still develop levels that result in downgrading. Screenings purchased for feed may contain abnormally high amounts of ergot. Oats are seldom affected. Headland grasses around fields are considered the most likely source of spores and the carry-over of ergot from one year to the next. Broadleaf crops like canola are not susceptible to ergot, which makes them an effective crop rotation choice.

The fungal pathogen produces alkaloid toxins that are vasoconstrictors in nature restricting both blood and milk flow. If ingested, ergot alkaloids can result in convulsions, hallucinations, gangrene, and death. LSD, the hallucinogen, was originally isolated from ergot. The first sign of ergot poisoning in livestock is often lameness caused by a restriction of blood flow to the extremities.

Most domestic species are susceptible to ergot poisoning including cattle, pigs, poultry and horses.

The poisonous alkaloids produced by ergot affect animals in several different ways. Pregnant females fed ergot in grain or hay can abort. Abortions have been reported in cattle, horses and pigs. Laying and breeder hens can also be affected by ergot. Tolerance for ergot in pregnant or breeding animal rations is zero.

Toxic levels of ergot in growing and finishing livestock rations affects performance, which may not become apparent for six to eight weeks after contaminated grain is introduced.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

In animals, classic signs of ergot poisoning are produced by the effect it has on peripheral circulation. Sustained intake of ergot causes vasoconstriction, or shutting down of blood supply to the extremities. Over time, poor blood supply to peripheral areas causes gangrene and sloughing of the tail, ear tips and hooves. In chronic cases an entire foot or claw will slough. Blood-starved extremities freeze in cold weather, compounding the problem. It is unlikely that animals affected to this extent will ever recover and animal welfare becomes an overriding concern.

There seems to be no clear answer to how much is too much. In the view of some nutritionists, the ergot limit for pigs is zero. For all other species, the maximum limit is one kernel per 1,000 or 0.1 per cent by weight (10 ergot bodies per litre of grain). Cattle will usually tolerate a maximum of 12 g of ergot consumption per day (10 ergot bodies weigh approximately one gram). Some feed mills will not accept grain deliveries with ergot levels above 0.04 to 0.06 per cent (four to six ergot-infected kernels per litre of grain). The risk associated with selling contaminated complete feeds and pelleted rations is high.

For producers swath grazing there is no easy way to assess the degree of ergot infestation. Producers need to evaluate swaths on a case-by-case, field-by-field basis, pulling them apart, calculating how much ergot is present and making a judgment call. If swaths look like they contain borderline toxic levels of ergot, dilute the ergot level by feeding ergot-free forage. Heavily contaminated feed can be diluted with “clean” grain. When in doubt: dilute. It’s better to be on the safe side.

Unfortunately there is no silver bullet for managing ergot poisoning. Disease management, while often difficult, is dependent on reduction of spore transmission to susceptible crops and understanding what risk exists. Things that help include: • Use of certified seed with low levels of ergot; • Control of grasses growing along headlands or roadways adjacent to fields; • Blending feeds; • Harvest and bin headlands separately; • Use of gravity tables and colour sorters to clean grain (if economical); • Crop rotation between cereals and broadleaf crops like canola; • Ensuring stands are uniform; • Understanding risk and discussing options with a veterinarian; • Feed testing (Ergovaline assays — Oregon State University) http:// oregonstate.edu/endophyte-lab/.

Ergot, a bane of human and animal health dating back to fifth century Europe when the fungus caused ergot epidemics, remains a potential threat for western Canadian agriculture 1,500 years later.

Be especially careful in 2013. c Dr. Ron Clarke prepares this column on behalf of the Western Canadian Association of Bovine Practitioners. Suggestions for future articles can be sent to Canadian Cattlemen (gren@fbcpublishing.com) or WCABP (info@wcabp.com).

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

39

 THE IN DUST RY

NewsRoundup More hamburger will come from forage-fed beef

By Angela Lovell

The current U.S. and Canadian beef industry model is broken according to U.S. economist Bill Helming because it’s not keeping up with changing consumer demand for Bill Helming meat products.

“The beef industry today has a onesize-fits-all business model that has been built upon cheap energy and cheap corn, but it largely ignores what the consumer is doing,” said Helming in his presentation to around 300 producers attending the Grass-

GREENER PASTURES

RANCHING LTD. Presents:

*Year-Round Grazing Systems* A Business Management School Topics include: • Human Resources • Economics and Finance • Pasture Calculations • Grazing Management • Pasture Rejuvenation • Weed Control • Cell Designs/Water Systems • Swath Grazing/Bale Grazing

fed Exchange Conference in Bismarck, North Dakota.

The U.S. and Canadian beef industries, says Helming, are married to a Prime Choice and Select production system that ignores what consumers are actually spending their money on, which increasingly is cheaper meats such as ground beef and chicken.

Per capita beef consumption in the U.S. has declined by 33 per cent over the last 40 years whilst chicken consumption in the same period increased by 126 per cent. Beef sales now represent only 28 per cent of the market for meat protein, with chicken leading the way at 41 per cent. Of the beef that is consumed an increasing amount is ground beef, not the roasts, steaks and other prime cuts that current beef production and grading systems are geared towards producing, says Helming. “In 1970 only 42 per cent of all beef consumed in the U.S. was ground beef and 58 per cent was muscle meats,” says Helming. “By 2012, ground beef accounted for 56 per cent of all beef consumed and muscle meats were down to 44 per cent.”

Consumption patterns are similar in Canada and the reason for increased ground beef and chicken consumption is simply price, says Helming. “It’s not a quesSTAMPEDE

By Gerry Palen

Location: Westlock, AB

When: Nov. 5th, 6th & 7th, 2013 Or ask us about setting up a school in your area.

Can you Graze 365 days a year? We provide a 3-day course that will take you right into the design and planning of a year-round grazing system. The course tuition is $800/Farm Unit, which allows two members from your farm business to attend. This course is well worth the investment.

Check out our website for details about funding availible!

To register please contact:

Steve Kenyon

Greener Pastures Ranching Ltd.

(780) 307-2275

www.greenerpasturesranching.com skenyon@greenerpasturesranching.com

40

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

“Oh look, Elmo.

There's something for everyone!”

tion of the quality of the product; that’s not the issue. The issue is affordability or the lack thereof,” says Helming. “Consumers have a lot of protein choices and the bottom line is they are buying more ground beef and chicken because of price and they are buying less of the middle meats also because of price.”

Ninety per cent of the consuming U.S. public make up 50 per cent of consumer purchases and the other 10 per cent accounts for the other 50 per cent. “So for 90 per cent of consumers price is a big issue and will become an even bigger issue in the future,” Helming predicts.

Economics and the beef industry

The demand for ground beef and chicken will continue to increase as the current trend of slow economic growth continues and consumers have less money to spend.

“The regular economic growth in the last five years has been dismal and the socalled “recovery” over the last three years has actually been the slowest economic growth in the history of the United States,” says Helming. “The best we can realistically hope for from the standpoint of average annual economic growth (in the U.S.) is 1.5 per cent in the 2013-24 time period.”

To put that in perspective, for the five years from 2008 to 2012 the average annual rate of U.S. economic GDP growth was only 0.60 per cent. In the 67 years prior to that the average rate of GDP growth was 3.82 per cent and that included 11 recessions.

The rate of GDP growth during the last great depression was 1.32 per cent, which is very close to what Helming predicts for the next 11 years in the U.S. There are a number of “bubbles’ present in the system that are waiting to burst and that will make another deflationary economic downturn inevitable, says Helming.

One “bubble” is the huge amount of private and public sector debt.

Private debt in the U.S. has increased by 218 per cent annually since 1957 and currently stands at around $43 trillion.

U.S. federal government gross debt in the last 12 years has grown seven times faster than the rate of inflation and almost nine times faster than the average rate

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

NEWS ROUNDUP

of economic growth to a figure of $17.4 trillion; about $56,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. The debt pyramid is way too high and when deleveraging of some of that debt is written down or written off it will result in reduced spending and investments, says Helming.

Changing global demographics will also have a part to play in slowing economies, adds Helming, who gives the example of the 78 million baby boomers in the U.S., 10,200 of whom will turn 65 every day for the next 21 years. As these people restructure their lives and slow down they will spend less, which is going to contribute to the underlying slowing trend in the economy, he says.

The beef inventory in the U.S. and Canada will continue to decline. The average beef herd size in the U.S. is 40 head per operator and that’s a very telling number, says Helming. “I think the decline in beef cattle inventory numbers is going to be with us for another 20 to 25 years,” he says. “The biggest reason is that the cost of maintaining beef cows today given the genetic makeup of the beef cattle herd is very high. The economic incentive to expand the cow herd under our present production systems is really not there.”

Cattle prices over the next 10 years will likely go down and current higher cattle prices may prove to be the top level, says Helming, and even now have their dark side because the record prices for beef in retail stores is pushing consumers ever more towards cheaper meats such as chicken and more ground beef.

Commodity prices are also likely to decline, says Helming together with land values, especially in the U.S. Corn Belt where farmland went up 72 per cent in the last three years to around $6,400 per acre. “I think Midwest and Corn Belt Iowa farmland in the next seven to10 years will sell for 35 to 50 per cent less compared to present prices,” he says.

Enhancing the current grading system

Helming believes that this model of beef production will be widespread within a few years and will provide huge opportunities for producers who want to stay in the industry. But, at the same time the current beef grading systems in the U.S and Canada need to be more reflective of what consumers are buying, he adds.

Helming recommends the beef industry in both countries develop additional categories in their respective grading systems to accommodate non-grain, grass and forage fed steers and heifers that are under 36 months of age at the time of slaughter, for the purpose of increasing the production and supply of more ground beef to satisfy increasing consumer demand. “For the last 35 to 40 years we’ve had a beef grading system in Canada and the U.S. geared towards producing choice, top quality beef,” says Helming. “As an industry, we need to enhance a grading system with additional categories that reflect ground beef and therein start the process of price discovery and allow supply and demand to develop a competitive system. We need to keep the grading system we have for the grain fed beef to produce some middle meats for the shrinking number of consumers who can afford them, but we also need to consider non-grain, grass and forage fed beef programs for the production of more ground beef.”

Further details can be found at www.billhelmingconsulting. com/ or by calling Helming at 913-768-6540.

Continued on page 42

Fixing the broken beef industry.

The future for the beef industry in the U.S. and Canada lies with those producers who are willing to step out of the box, says Helming, who was the first chief economist for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and general manager of CattleFax from 1965 to 1971. Helming who has been writing and distributing a marketing newsletter and reports has an impressive track record of forecasting long-term economic trends in the farm industry. “The opportunity for the future is in producing at a much lower cost more and more ground beef. We can do that through grass and forage much better than we can with grain,” says Helming.

Helming is convinced that it will be essential for future cattle producers to produce quality beef at a lower cost by using economical feeds such as grass and forages rather than corn or other grains and to concentrate on raising smaller frame animals with the intent that the whole animal be processed for ground beef. “The fact that consumption of ground beef in the U.S. has increased by a third in the last 40 years is significant,” says Helming. “That’s a huge opportunity and one we can capitalize on as an industry and as individual producers.”

Helming is in the process of setting up a feedlot model based on taking grass-fed cattle and growing and producing beef destined for the ground beef market on a forage-based program, with plans to include less conventional forage crops such as triticale and sorghum sudangrass and raise smaller-framed cattle exclusively for the ground beef market. www.canadiancattlemen.ca

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

41

NEWS ROU NDU P

News Roundup Continued from page 41

Records

Ottawa beefs up cattle genetics in Ontario

Ottawa is investing more than $1 million to beef up the genetic base of cattle herds in Ontario.

The first investment of $827,050 will help BIO, a producer co-operative, conduct three leading-edge research projects to promote the use and understanding of genetic evaluations, improve genetic selection in beef and sheep through the use of economic predictions based on genetic improvement and study genetic traits to identify markers that can be used to improve carcass value and quality.

“Genomics is the turbocharger to genetic improvement programs in the beef industry and this CAAP funding allowed BIO to help producers build the all-important reference data base, while also giving back information right away on two of the most important traits in beef production; feed efficiency and tenderness,” say BIO vice-president Dave Milliner. “I used the results on my young bull calves to determine which ones should be culled before I invest in evaluating their growth performance. This saved me $250 per culled animal and ensures that I have the best breeding stock possible to sell.”

STAMPEDE

By Gerry Palen

“Showmanship at its finest”

42

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

Another grant of $264,110 to the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association (OCA) will fund research into the use of comprehensive analysis of liver function as a means of improving feed efficiency in beef cattle.

The results will also help determine the relationship between feed efficiency and other performance parameters such as cow fertility and weight.

This investment is being made through the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP), a five-year (20092014) program that helps the agricultural sector respond to new opportunities and challenges.

For more information on CAAP visit www.agr.gc.ca/caap.

Research

Parasitic worm genome could help control parasites

Researchers at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (UCVM) are part of an international team that sequenced the genome of the parasite Haemonchus contortus, commonly known as the barber’s pole worm.

Their findings, recently published in the journal Genome Biology, could be used to help develop treatments for gastrointestinal worms that cost the global livestock industry billions annually. Their work could also assist with research into new treatment options for several human parasites.

“The genomes of parasitic worms are far larger and more complex than those of other pathogens such as bacteria and viruses and so provide a significant challenge for genomic studies. This work now provides a much awaited genomic resource for a whole group of important livestock pathogens,” says John Gilleard, associate dean, research, UCVM. The barber’s pole worm, named for the pink spiral gut inside its body, is an agricultural parasite that resides in the stomach of sheep and other livestock around the world. Though well studied in the past, this is the first time the whole genome has been sequenced for this group of organisms.

“Just one example of the valuable information provided by the genome is the identification of five enzymes essential to the survival of the parasite. These may represent an Achilles heel for the worm and two of these proteins are of particular interest as they are already

being studied as potential drug targets against other pathogens, “ says James Wasmuth, assistant professor, UCVM, who worked closely with Gilleard on the project.

“To discover these targets, we determined when and where each gene is turned on or off in the parasite which now provides the most extensive dataset of its kind for any gastrointestinal worm,” says Wasmuth.

“This resource will also be invaluable for studying drug resistance in parasites,” adds Gilleard. “We sequenced a strain of H. contortus susceptible to all the major drugs.

Comparing this genome with those of drug resistant worms will reveal a wealth of information about how and why resistance occurs and will provide critical information needed to develop more sensitive diagnostic tools.”

Gastrointestinal worms are endemic on farms. The cost to the Canadian cattle industry alone runs into tens of millions of dollars annually. Parasite control has become dependent on the routine use of a small number of drugs to which the parasites are now becoming resistant.

“H. contortus has already become resistant to all the available drugs and this is now happening for the closely related parasites of cattle. This is a major concern for both the economics of livestock production and for animal welfare and an emerging problem for the cattle industry here in Alberta,” Gilleard adds.

The research paper can be read online at: http://genomebiology.com/2013/14/8/ R88/abstract.

management

Pain control to be required for dehorning, bull castration

Pain control will be required starting in 2016 when castrating bulls beyond a certain age, where beef cattle operations follow the now-updated and finalized code of practice for care and handling.

Researchers, producers, veterinarians, transportation representatives, humane societies, animal enforcement and government took part in the new code’s development.

Cattle operations that follow the code will, as of Jan. 1, 2016, be required to use pain control, in consultation with a veterinarian, when castrating bulls older than nine months.

Continued on page 44

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Visit AGCanada.com/TCCA to watch

“This Country Called Agriculture” A new on-demand video series that delivers relevant news & information on today’s agriculture industry.

TCCA Host Rob Eirich

This special series hosted on the CATV network, features several key agriculture related videos that cover a wide rage of topics, including: 

Sustainability  Starting a new farm  New technology  Food production  Ag innovations  Renewable energy

 Production

and marketing  Exporting  Alternative energy & fuel sources  AND MORE

OVER 25 VIDEOS yOu CAn WATCH AT yOuR LEISuRE! MORE EPISODES ADDED REguLARLy

When you're good and ready, visit: AGCanada.com/TCCA and click on the VIDEOS link TCCA is brought to you by

About CATV/RDTV RDTV has been serving central Alberta for over 50 years. As a new media company, RDTV broadcasts on Channel 147 (O-Net) and offers video on demand of it's extensive archived content.

RDTV has been active in developing new media programming in agriculture, politics, central Alberta news as well as local professional and semi-pro sporting activities.

NEWS ROU N DU P

News Roundup Continued from page 42

Starting Jan. 1, 2018, pain control will be required when castrating bulls older than six months of age.

The code also emphasizes that castrations, by any method, cause pain and distress for bulls, “which can be minimized by castrating as early as possible, preferably within the first week of life.”

Early castration, according to the new code, also makes it easier to restrain calves, reduce the time taken for the procedure and increase operator safety.

Current techniques for local anesthesia during castration are not practical at a herd level but the authors of the code note Canadian researchers are seeking practical solutions to this challenge.

12/6/07

(Attachment usually occurs at about two to three months of age.)

Disbudding — that is, removing the horn bud before it attaches — involves less tissue trauma when horn development is still at the horn bud stag. Nevertheless, the code states, both disbudding and dehorning still cause pain and distress for all cattle.

That said, the proportion of beef cattle with horns has been steadily decreasing in recent years, as the availability and adoption of polled (hornless) genetics has increased.

For more on this topic turn to our Research On The Record column on page 16 of this issue.

Environment

Will Western Canada’s native rangeland survive climate change?

How Western Canada’s native range will respond to temperature increases and precipitation fluctuations projected by climate-change modelling likely won’t be the same across the board. Forage availabilDehorning ity will depend on the type of vegetation, 11:09 AM Page 1 Starting Jan. 1, 2016, the new code will also growing conditions and grazing managerequire the use of pain control to limit pain ment at each location, say researchers from in dehorning calves at any point after the the universities of Alberta, British Columhorn bud attaches itself to the calf ’s skull. bia, and Thompson Rivers, who recently wrapped up a pair of three-year studies on this subject.

Some climate-change models suggest trends toward more precipitation coming in winter months, rather than during summer when it is most effective for plant growth.

There a risk1 of greater moisture volatility CSA Bus. Card Jan04 12/9/03 11:21 AM is also Page with the frequency of extreme rainfall events

CANADIAN HEREFORD ASSOCIATION

MARKETPLACE

Unbeatable Maternal Performance Canadian Simmental Association

403-250-7979

13 - 4101 19 Street, N.E. Calgary, AB www.simmental.com

SHORTHOR NS

to improve marbling, feed conversion and add docility.

Canadian Shorthorn Association

5160 Skyline Way NE Calgary, Alberta T2E 6V1 Phone: (403) 275-2662 Toll Free (888) 836-7242 Fax: (403) 295-1333 Toll Free: (888) 824-2329 www.hereford.ca

More Efficient Means More Hereford

“A GOOD BOTTOM LINE STARTS WITH A GREAT COW HERD!”

CANADIAN GELBVIEH ASSOCIATION 5160 Skyline Way NE, CALGARY, ALBERTA, T2E 6V1 PH: (403) 250-8640 • FAX: (403) 291-5624

Box 3771 306-757-2212 Regina, SK S4P 3N8 Fax 306-525-5852 Email: office@canadianshorthorn.com www.canadianshorthorn.com

44

increasing and longer dry periods between.

Hotter weather would compound the problem because plants would need more water to meet growth and evaporation requireEdward Bork ments. All of these factors may culminate to increase the likelihood of drought across Western Canada. On the other hand, some models predict more rainfall due to warmer summer weather patterns across Cameron Carlyle the West.

The researchers used open-top chambers to increase air temperature by 2 C, rainout shelters to reduce the amount of rainfall reaching the plants, and clipping to simulate various grazing intensities during the growing season to assess the additive effects of these factors on forage availability and quality.

Warming reduced total season-long forage production across the Prairies by eight per cent and by almost 50 per cent in some locations in British Columbia. This signals a significant threat to the security of the forage supply for the cattle industry, say two of the lead researchers, Edward Bork and Cameron Carlyle.

The effect of warming was particularly evident in the reduction of regrowth following severe defoliation early in the growing season, highlighting the need to limit early-season grazing to maintain the productivity of forage plants.

Decreases in rainfall reduced total forage production across the Prairies by nearly 25 per cent. The greatest reductions were observed in the moister grasslands of central Alberta

Forage Additive For alfalfa silage, corn silage and baled hay

WWW.GELBVIEH.CA

Dry granular or ready-to-use liquid More on the web

those s” “famou

✷

“THE WELSH BLACK ADVANTAGE”

plainjans.com

Roper

gloves

from

620-872-5777

:

p la i n j a n s

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

DON’T MISS

✷

Canadian Welsh Black Cattle Society Box 546 Trochu, AB T0M 2C0 Ph/Fax: (403) 442-4372

✷

www.canadianwelshblackcattle.com

✷

Value of dry matter saved - treatment cost = dollars saved INTERNATIONAL STOCK FOOD

1-877-473-2474 info@isfcanada.ca www.isfcanada.ca

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

NEWS ROUNDUP

Lower grassland experimental site just north of Kamloops B.C. (Cameron N. Carlyle), showing combinations of the open-top chambers and one of the two styles of rainout shelters to mimic reduced precipitation and, or increased temperature.

tral Alberta (annual precipitation of 431 mm) and Manitoba (507 mm), where forage declined by 43 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively. Much of the drop in forage production at these locations was associated with poor regrowth when precipitation was limited during the middle of the growing season.

The mixed-grass semiarid site in Saskatchewan (annual precipitation of 386 mm) was least affected by low rainfall conditions, possibly due to the abundance of deep-rooted grasses with greater inherent drought tolerance.

Drought effects on grassland productivity also depended on the degree of defoliation during the growing season. With normal rainfall, grass productivity was unaffected by low-intensity defoliation. This highlighted the compatibility of moderate livestock grazing with maintaining grassland production, says Bork. On the other hand, both light and heavy defoliation suppressed grass production under drought conditions, suggesting that grazing practices will be pivotal in maintaining forage productivity.

Another concern is the risk of changes in forage quality. Levels of protein typically peak in spring during green-up, and progressively decline throughout the growing season, says Bork. However, high levels of physiological stress on plants can prematurely shut down growth, leading to earlier and larger reductions in quality.

This was the case for both the drought www.canadiancattlemen.ca

and warming simulations across the Prairies, with further declines at the Alberta site under the combined stress of drought and warming. Bork says early-season decreases in quality could increase the need for costly supplementation of cattle in mid- to late summer, even in areas like central Alberta where growth and quality of native grasslands are normally adequate into late fall.

If too wet

Considering the model that suggests potential for precipitation to increase under warmer summer weather patterns, the research team found that forage production on native range increased by nearly 50 per cent with a 60 per cent increase in precipitation.

Another obvious benefit of greater summer rainfall was the increase in forage regrowth following early-summer defoliation, regardless of clipping intensity. This also translated into improved forage quality during late summer. These changes could increase carrying capacity and extend the grazing season.

The exception was British Columbia, where Carlyle found additional water during summer didn’t increase plant growth.

Again, this may be due to inherent characteristics of the forage species there, with many being adapted to early-season growth and, therefore, limited in their ability to use additional water later on.

Given that generalized climate-change models project long-term temperature

increases of 4 C to 5 C for Western Canada, overall reductions in forage production may be even more substantial than examined under the 2 C increase in this study, particularly if coupled with drought, Carlyle says.

The researchers acknowledge that climate-change studies pertaining to grasslands should ideally take a long-term approach because of grasslands’ ability to tolerate variation in growing conditions. Changes could happen gradually over time, eventually leading to significant changes when key forage plants disappear.

The overall effects of climate change will depend a great deal on changes in the amount of precipitation and likely on the timing of precipitation within a specific region, as well as ongoing grazing management practices, they conclude.

Conservative stocking rates, for example, leave sufficient litter to retain soil moisture, and can improve plant growth during dry periods. As well, forage stockpiled during wet periods provides critical resources during extended drought.

Managing around reductions in forage quantity, including the use of flexible stocking rates, and conservative stocking rates when necessary, may be key to maintaining pasture health and vigour as well as providing a buffer to balance variation in long-term forage supply with livestock production.

For more information on these studies contact Edward.bork@ualberta.ca, or Cameron.carlyle@ualberta.ca. c

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

45

 NEWS AB OUT YOU

By Deb Wilson

PurelyPurebred

Suggestions are always welcome. My phone number is 403-325-1695 Email: deb.wilson@ fbcpublishing.com

 As part of the action plan following the Spotlight on Limousin, the board of the Canadian Limousin Association has created a commercial liaison committee to guide the board in its commercial endeavours.

Director Tim Andrew chairs the new group, which had its first meeting in September.  The Canadian Junior Limousin Association held its AGM in Neepawa. Thirteen members attended and selected their board for 2013-14: Cassidy Matthews, president; Brandon Hertz, vice-president; Bailey McConnell, secretary; Dana Carpenter, treasurer; Cheyenne Porter, press reporter; directors at large Nicole Bielecki, Curtis Bielecki, Cameron Olson and Brandon Hollingsworth. Eric Boon of Lucky Lake, Sask., is the new CLA director in charge of junior programs. He can be contacted at 306-280-8795 or eboon3@ hotmail.com.  Susanne Fankhanel of New Norway is the secretary/manager of the Alberta Hereford Association, replacing Michele Rutledge who recently decided to retire after successfully guiding the association for the past 10-1/2 years. Susanne has over 20 years of experience in office management and accounting and has roots in the Hereford industry. Her family currently uses Hereford bulls in their commercial herd. The new AHA contact info is: RR #2 New Norway, Alta. T0B 3L0; abherefords@ xplornet.ca (note the change to .ca); ph.

780-855-3912; fax 780-855-3913.  The Canadian Limousin Association is urging members to submit performance data on their animals in order to validate the genomic research being done on the Limousin breed. Genomics is breed specific. It cannot piggyback any other breed’s data for the discovery of Limousin genetic markers and how they impact the animal’s approximately 22,000 genes. The association has already issued a laminated quick reference sheet to breeders as a guide to the type of information to record and submit.

The quick reference guide is also posted on the Canadian Limousin Association website, www.limousin.com.

46

C at t l e m e n · o c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

The Canadian Simmental Association board of directors. Back row (l-r): John Sullivan, Dave Milliner, Randy Mader, Fraser Redpath, Wes Mack, Kelly Ashworth. Front row (l-r): Lacey Fisher, Maureen Mappin-Smith, Deanne Young.

 Dave Milliner from Dundalk, Ont., and Maureen Mappin-Smith of Byemoor, Alta., were elected as directors of the Canadian Simmental Association board during the group’s annual meeting earlier this summer. They replace retiring directors Ron Nolan and Kara Enright. Lacey Fisher was re-elected to the board for a second term. The new executive of the association are: president, Fraser Redpath, vice-president Kelly Ashworth and second vice-president, Randy Mader.  Canadian Angus Association National Show is being held at the 40th annual Farmfair International in Edmonton on Friday, November 8. The shows begin at 8 a.m. in Hall B. In addition to the shows, visitors can enjoy the Genomics Showcase featuring interactive displays, activities, informative presentations and live cattle; an enhanced commercial cattle program; the Headliner Show and Sale; and the Alberta Supreme Show. Farmfair International is hosting eight National livestock shows this year. In keeping with the 40th Anniversary of the show Farmfair is inviting everyone to share memories and photos from the past 39 years. For details visit www.farmfairinternational.com.

 Turning Information into Application is the theme of the 4th Annual Livestock Gentec Conference. The two-day conference includes a half-day producer session hosted by Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development and prominent keynote speakers. The dates are October 22 and 23 at the Coast Edmonton Plaza Hotel.  The Canadian Angus Association wrapped up its second year of summer marketing internships for university or college students.

The three young cattle producers completing the 16-week internships this year were Kawtelyn Dietrich in Calgary, Karla Ness in Regina and Matthew Bates in Ontario. Altogether the three travelled more than 42,000 kilometres attending 4-H shows, classrooms, achievement days, conferences, provincial activities, all-breed shows and conventions across Canada on behalf of the breed. During their time on the road, the interns promoted the Angus heifer project and encouraged other young people to get involved in raising their own herd of Angus cattle, as part of the various activities offered by the Canadian Junior Angus Association. They also created brochures, postcards and videos as part of their

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

PURELY PUREBRED

 The Canadian Angus Association will close its old office at noon Friday, October 25 and reopen on Tuesday, October 29 at its new location, Angus Central! In the meantime members were being asked to continue sending paperwork to the old office address at 142, 6715 - 8 Street NE, Calgary, Alta. T2E 7H7. All phone and fax numbers remain the same. The official opening of Angus Central is Wednesday, December 11, 2013. marketing efforts. July included a 10-day stay at the Calgary Stampede working at the Cattle Trail exhibit where they assisted the Canadian Beef Breeds Council’s team in educating the public on beef nutrition and the various beef breeds. This year’s exhibit attracted more than 88,000 visitors.  The Agrium Western Event Centre being built at the Calgary Stampede grounds is slated for completion in 2014. This state-ofthe-art facility for western events and exhibitions will host a globally focused educational program called Journey 2050 that will play a central role in making the Calgary Stam-

pede a year-round gathering place. For more information visit: http://corporate.calgarystampede.com/about/park-development/ agrium-western-event-centre/.

Park steer, owned by Chase High of Airdrie, Alta. The steer graded out with AAA20 marbling, a rib-eye of 89 square centimetres, a Sterling Silver score of 77 and a carcass weight of 720 pounds. Chase received the Grand Champion prize of $3,000 plus the value of the carcass.

The Reserve Champion steer was another Speckle Park with AAA20 marbling, an 82 square centimeter rib-eye, a Sterling Silver score of 74 and a carcass weight of 737 pounds, owned by Ashley Shewchuk of High River.

 The Calgary Stampede’s Quality Beef Competition takes place after the last fireworks have gone off and everybody’s gone home, but it is one of the most important events at the Stampede in terms of its impact on the Canadian beef industry as it highlights the winning entries of the annual UFA Steer Classic. For the third time in the last four years, the Quality Beef Competition was won by a Speckle

Continued on page 48

Join Join Join Livestock Livestock Livestock Gentec Gentec in in in Gentec Edmonton Edmonton Edmonton Get Practical Information on Managing Your Profitability

Get Practical Information on Managing Your Profitability

Get Practical Information on Managing Your Profitability

Key s peakers include:

Key speakers include:

Key speakers include:

• John Crowley of Livestock Gentec discussing the role of genomics (if any) in decisions on • John Crowley of retaining Livestock Gentec discussing the role of fgeeder enomics (if aany) in hole decisions on selecting bulls, marketing nd w herd • John Crowley of hLeifers, ivestock Gentec discussing the role ocf alves, genomics (if any) in idmprovement. ecisions on retaining heifers, bulls, marketing feeder calves, and whole herd improvement. shelecting retaining eifers, s electing b ulls, m arketing f eeder c alves, a nd w hole h erd i mprovement.

• Peter Fennessy of AbacusBio on the cost/benefits of genomics to cow/calf herd and

• Peter Fennessy feedlot of AbacusBio on the operations. cost/benefits of genomics to cow/calf herd and • Peter Fennessy of AbacusBio on the cost/benefits of genomics to cow/calf herd and

feedlot operations.

feedlot operations.

Kozyra of The Prasino Group on Cows, Carbon Credits & How to Get In on it • Karen Haugen-­‐

Kozyra of The Prasino Group on Cows, Carbon Credits & How to Get In on it • Karen Haugen-­‐ • Karen Haugen-­‐Kozyra of The Prasino Group on Cows, Carbon Credits & How to Get In on it

www.livestockgentec.com

To register or for more information www.livestockgentec.com www.livestockgentec.com To register or for more information

To register or for more information

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

C at t l e m e n · o c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

47

PU R E LY PU R E B R E D

Continued from page 47

“The whole thing was drawn up around consumer retail demand,” explains Fred Taylor, who developed the standards for the Quality Beef Competition and is part of the judging panel. Taylor is a longtime inspector with the Canadian Beef Grading Agency (CBGA). “I developed this competition around the sales people that sell this meat to the consumer,” he says. “I work very closely with chefs and they know what their customers want.”  The two scholarship winners of this year’s Manitoba Youth Beef Round Up are Justin Kristjansson of Forrest and Laura Horner of Minnedosa. Justin who was raised on a commercial cow-calf operation and purchased his first purebred Shorthorn at 13 has begun his veterinary degree at at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon. He has participated in the Beef Round Up since 2011. Laura has entered into her first year of a Bachelor of Science degree at Brandon University and hopes to eventually apply to the Western College of

Scholarship recipients (l-r) (Andrea Bertholet), Laura Horner, Justin Kristjansson, (Ken Williams).

Veterinary Medicine. She was raised on a commercial cow-calf operation and enjoys showing cattle and volunteering at the local veterinary clinic. She has also participated in the Round Up since 2011.

The $1,000 scholarships are funded by

Manitoba cattle breeders. Tickets worth $10 are sold at the annual meetings of the various breed associations each winter with the grand prize being the honour of having your farm or business name printed on the Round Up shirts the following year. c

Answer our survey — and have a go at winning one of our caps

We have a goal to be the best beef cattle magazine in the business. But we need your help. If you could just fill in this survey and return it to me, you would be helping us set the future editorial direction for Canadian Cattlemen. All you have to do is tell me what you like about the magazine, and what you

We’d appreciate it if you could tell us a little about yourself. It makes it easier for us to keep your main interests in focus  I’m ranching or farming Enterprise Total beef cattle Yearlings on feed/pasture Registered cows Fed cattle (sold yearly) Commercial cows Horses Calves on feed/pasture Other livestock

# of head

 I no longer take an active part in farming If not an owner/operator of a farm, are you:

 In agribusiness (bank, elevator, ag supplies, etc.)  Other (please specify) ____________________ My approximate age is:  a) Under 35  b) 36 to 44  d) 55 to 64  e) 65 or over

48

 c) 45 to 54

C at t l e m e n · o c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

don’t like. There’s also some space for you to tell us what you would like to see in future issues.

ClIp And enClose your mAIlIng lABel. each month, we will draw one name from all the surveys sent in and send that person a Cattlemen cap. It could be you!

What do you think of: On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you and your family like these features?

5 – I always watch for it; let’s see more of it 4 – I regularly read it and like it 3 – I usually read it 2 – There are things I’d rather read 1 – I don’t want it; get rid of it Regular Columns 5 4 3

Regular Columns News Roundup Purely Purebred The Markets

5

4

3

2

1

Market Talk Sales and Events

2 1 Nutrition Comment Research Special features 5 4 3 2 1 Newsmakers Letters Calving Issue (Jan.) CCA Reports Custom Feedlot Guide (Sep.) Prime Cuts Stock Buyers’ Guide (Aug.) Straight From The Hip Animal Health Special (Sep.) Holistic Ranching Beef Watch (May & Nov.) What would you like to see? __________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ How much time do you and your family spend reading 1666 Dublin Avenue Canadian Cattlemen?  Under 2 hours  Over 2 hours Winnipeg, Man. R3H 0H1

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

 Market Su mma ry

By Debbie McMillin

TheMarkets Fed Cattle The fed market remains unseasonably strong. In the 13 weeks since it peaked at an average $122.70, the cash market has averaged $119.35/cwt, more than $9 per cwt better than same 13 weeks last year. And it has remained stable for even longer, not dropping below $118/cwt for more than 20 consecutive weeks. The cash-to-cash basis at this writing sits at -11.33/cwt, which is fairly close to a year ago when it was -11.78/ cwt. Exports have slowed in recent weeks with 247,247 head going south by the end of August, which is down about two per cent from 2012. Domestic steer slaughter is down five per cent at 938,342 head and heifer slaughter is off by 13 per cent year-todate at 542,472 head.

The September 1 Alberta and Saskatchewan cattle-on-feed inventories were up seven per cent over a year ago at 616,188 head, which was a bit of a surprise since inventories generally decline from August 1

to September 1. The difference this year can be attributed to a 13 per cent increase in placements during August to 135,287 head as producers responded to the improved yearling prices, plus an 11 per cent decline in marketings compared to last year. Other disappearances were also 10 per cent higher.

Feeder Cattle A lower cost of gain, smaller North American cow herd, and a solid summer fed-cattle market all contributed to the strong start seen on this year’s fall feeder run.

Yearling feeder prices have increased steadily since May 17 when 850-lb. steers dipped down to $121.50/cwt. By midSeptember the yearlings had gained $23 to post an average $144.50/cwt. That is $6.50 better than a year ago. The 850-feeder basis remains wide compared to recent years. By mid-September it was sitting at -18.65/cwt, which is 12.47 wider than a year ago and

 DE B’S OUTLOOK Fed Cattle Prices in the near term as we move into October may see some pressure as packers seem comfortable with their inventories and exports to U.S. buyers have slowed slightly. As we move into the fourth quarter, supplies are expected to tighten and demand should increase as wholesalers are looking to secure some higher-value cuts. Looking further out, the deferred futures on fed cattle look favourable heading into early 2014.

Feeder Cattle Seasonally heavier feeder cattle should post their highs in the next few weeks. The U.S. district court decision to not grant an injunction on the COOL amendments may cause some uncertainty in the feeder market, however, all other fundamentals point to a strong fall run on calves.

Fundamentally the demand for calves, from both domestic and export buyers,

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

is strong as feedlots look to take advantage of reduced feed costs and recoup some of the losses incurred on calves placed last fall. Buyers will be cautious but prices similar to stronger than a year ago will be supported moving forward. Cost of gain as well as issues around country-of-origin labelling will be the largest price factors to watch this fall.

Non-Fed Cattle Large marketings of slaughter cows throughout 2013 will limit the numbers available this fall and winter. Recent hot, dry conditions across much of the Prairies may shorten the grazing season and bring some cows destined for the market to town sooner rather than later. This increase in volume should be manageable and any pressure on the non-fed market will likely be short lived. Look for cow and bull prices to strengthen again heading into the new year.

$10 weaker than the five-year average. Up to our reporting date feeder cattle continued to pour into the U.S. with annual exports reaching 178,905 head to the end of August — a full 72 per cent ahead of 2012 at the same date.

Calf numbers are starting to pick up at auction markets as many producers begin pulling calves off summer pastures. This market continues to gain strength from a significant reduction in expected feed costs.

Barley prices over the past four months have decreased by 31 per cent compared to a year ago. Feedlots are looking at a 22 per cent drop on cattle placed in the 2012 fall run. At the start of September 550-lb. feeder steers were averaging $159.17/cwt, which is $6.67 higher than 2012.

Non-Fed Cattle Slight pressure on the cull cattle market has been noted in recent weeks as seasonal volumes of non-fed cattle started to pick up.

Average D1,2 cow prices dropped $5.50/ cwt over the past month to post a midSeptember average of $77.13/cwt, which is still about a dollar over last year’s price.

Cow slaughter at 286,678 head is down two per cent from last year. Exports continue to make up for any drop in slaughter numbers. To date we have shipped 184,000 cows to the U.S., 82 per cent more than the number exported through the same period in 2012.

Butcher bull prices saw some pressure early in the month but started to recover by mid-September averaging $89.05/cwt.

Bull shipments seasonally increased in recent weeks as producers pulled bulls from pastures. Most of the bulls in Canada are exported. To date we’ve shipped nearly 45,000 bulls to the U.S., an increase of 57 per cent over last year. In contrast, domestic bull slaughter is down 76 per cent at just 2,995 head to this point in 2013. c Debbie McMillin is a market analyst who ranches at Hanna, Alta.

More markets 

C a t t l e m e n · o c t o b e r 2 0 1 3 49

M A R K ETS

Break-even Prices on A-Grade Steers

Market Prices

140

190

ALBERTA

130

170

120

160

110

150

100 90 155 145

Steer Calves (500-600 lb.)

180

140 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

ONTARIO

135

130

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

95

D1,2 Cows

85 75

125

65

115

55

105 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Canfax weighted average price on A-Grade steers

Break-even price for steers on date sold

2013 2012

2014 2013

September 2013 prices* Alberta Yearling steers (850 lb.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $146.22/cwt Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.74/bu.

Barley silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.25/ton Cost of gain (feed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.67/cwt Cost of gain (all costs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.33/cwt Fed steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119.07/cwt Break-even (January 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.83/cwt Ontario Yearling steers (850 lb.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $144.80/cwt Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.40/ton Grain corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.30/bu.

Cost of gain (feed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.57/cwt Cost of gain (all costs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120.30/cwt Fed steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124.00/cwt Break-even (March 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134.66/cwt *Mid-month to mid-month prices Breakevens East: end wt 1,450, 183 days West end wt 1,325 lb., 125 days

45

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Ontario

Alberta

2013 2012

2013 2012

Ontario prices based on a 50/50 east/west mix

Market Summary (to September 7) 2013

2012

Total Canadian federally inspected slaughter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,770,487. . . . . . . . . 1,923,032 Average steer carcass weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 lb.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 874 lb.

Total U.S. slaughter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,662,000. . . . . . . 23,007,000

Trade Summary Exports 2013 2012 Fed cattle to U.S. (to Aug. 31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247,247.. . . . . . . . . . .251,052 Feeder cattle and calves to U.S. (to Aug. 31). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178,905.. . . . . . . . . . .104,287 Dressed beef to U.S. (to July) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250.71 mil.lbs.. . . . .300.18 mil.lbs Total dressed beef (to July). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.69 mil.lbs.. . . . 395.29 mil.lbs 2013 IMPORTS 2012 Slaughter cattle from U.S. (to July) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 *Dressed beef from U.S. (to July) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217.83 mil.lbs. . . . . 200.80 mil.lbs *Dressed beef from Australia (to July) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.24 mil.lbs. . . . . . . 16.28 mil.lbs *Dressed beef from New Zealand (to July) . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.64 mil.lbs. . . . . . .30.44 mil.lbs *Dressed beef from Uruguay (to July) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.42 mil.lbs. . . . . . . 15.09 mil.lbs Canadian Grades (to September 14) % of A grades +59% 54-58% AAA 21.7 21.8 AA 28.2 8.6 A 1.8 0.1 Prime 0.2 0.5 Total 31.0 51.9

EAST WEST

Total graded 415,070 1,387,071

Yield – 53% Total 11.8 55.3 2.3 39.1 0.0 1.9 0.9 1.6 15.0 Total A grade 97.9%

Total ungraded 19,819 162

% carcass basis 79.3% 87.3% Only federally inspected plants

50

C at t l e m e n · o c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

 market ta l k

By Gerald Klassen

feed grains continue to grind lower

T

he grain harvest is in the final stages across Western Canada and many farmers and feedlot producers have been inquiring about the feed grain price outlook now that the industry has a better idea of overall production. Yield reports have been coming in larger than earlier anticipated across the Prairies and the U.S. corn crop has also developed very well despite the drier conditions during August. Cash barley prices in southern Alberta have been trending lower and will likely stay under pressure into the winter period as the feed grain complex digests the U.S. corn crop. Cattle-on-feed inventories are also at seasonal lows during September and early October resulting in limited domestic demand. Feedlot on feed numbers only significantly increase in December and stay at the higher levels until early May. The Canadian barley market is currently functioning to encourage offshore movement and world export prices are also quite soft given the larger production in Europe and the Black Sea region.

Statistics Canada estimated Canadian barley production at 8.8 million mt but the industry feels that the crop size will be closer to 9.6 million mt. Crop reports suggest the average yield will be 64 bushels per acre, which is up 10 bushels per acre from 2012. The focus is now turning to the demand equation. Cattle-on-feed numbers have been trending below year-ago levels so domestic feed usage will be marginally lower. Domestic food, malting usage, and seed requirements are about the same every year which means the market has about 1.6 million mt available for export which would result in a carryout of 2.2 million mt which is just above the 10-year average. Therefore, producers can expect prices in southern Alberta to drop to a 10-year average as well.

The USDA estimated the corn crop at 13.8 billion bushels, up from 2012 crop size of 10.8 billion bushels. It appears we may see some fine tuning in later reports regarding final harvested acreage and actual yields because the harvest is in the early stages at the time of writing

this article. However, the trade is anticipating a carry-out of 1.8 billion bushels which is up sharply from the 0.661 bushel carry-out for 201213 and also up from the five-year average of 1.4 billion bushels. Notice back during the 2009-10 crop year, the carry-out was 1.7 billion bushels and I remember the corn futures trading in the range of $3 to $4 per bushel. This was also during the commodity meltdown but this reflects the potential downside when the carry-out is this large. Corn offers into southern Alberta from the U.S. are a slight premium to barley but I feel that corn will eventually trade at a discount to barley during certain periods of the 2013-14 crop year. This will keep pressure on local barley prices in Western Canada and also confirm projections for a larger barley export program if domestic demand for barley is displaced by corn.

Weaker feed grain prices will support feeder cattle prices during the fall and winter period. Yearling values have been percolating higher and I’m expecting the feeder cattle market to touch the all-time record highs from the winter of 2011-12 during February and March of 2014. Cowcalf operators should be aware of barley and corn values in southern Alberta as this has a direct relationship with the feeder market.

In conclusion, the feed grains complex is currently digesting the larger Canadian barley and U.S. corn crops. Farmer selling has been quite steady during the harvest period while cattle inventories are at seasonal lows. Later in winter, domestic demand increases but I’m expecting Alberta feedlots to use a fair amount of U.S. corn this winter. The U.S. corn market is functioning to encourage demand through lower prices. Feeder cattle are expected to trend higher as feedlot managers realize the lower feed grain prices. c

Supply and disposition of Canadian barley (’000 tonnes)

u.s. corn Supply and demand

09/10

10/11

11/12

10-year average

Estimated 12/13

Estimated 13/14

Acres seeded

8,663

6,911

6,472

9,910

7,405

7,150

Acres harvested

7,209

5,899

5,843

8,428

6,850

6,900

Yield (bu./ac.)

60.60

59.21

61.00

56.00

54.10

64.00

Opening stocks Aug. 1

2,844

2,583

1,441

2,235

1,241

1,139

Production

9,517

7,605

7,755

10,270

8,068

9,615

42

42

14

66

10

11

SUPPLY

Imports TOTAL SUPPLY

12,403

10,230

9,210

12,571

9,319

10,765

Gerald Klassen analyzes markets in Winnipeg and also maintains an interest in the family feedlot in southern Alberta. He can be reached at gklassen7@hotmail.com.

USDA 09/10

USDA 10/11

USDA 11/12

5-year average

USDA 12/13

USDA 13/14

97.4

Acres seeded

86.5

88.2

91.9

89.2

97.2

Acres harvested

79.6

81.4

83.9

82.0

87.4

89.1

Yield (bu./ac.)

164.7

152.8

147.2

153.9

123.4

155.3

SUPPLY (million bushels) Opening stocks Aug. 1

1,674

1,708

1,128

1,487.6

989

661

Production

13,110

12,447

12,360

12,618.4

10,780

13,843

Imports TOTAL SUPPLY

8

27

29

19.2

162

25

14,793

14,182

13,516

14,125.2

11,931

14,530

USE (million bushels)

USE Exports

1,301

1,272

1,181

1,480

1,250

1,600

Feed-waste-dockage

5,167

4,803

4,548

5,149.6

4,475

5,100

Seed

256

233

257

336

280

280

Food seed industrial

5,930

6,415

5,867

5,505.2

6,060

6,350

4,560

5,020

5,011

4,258.2

4,665

4,900

11.097

11,218

10,985

10,768.8

10,535

11,450

Ethanol

Human food/industrial/1

954

902

933

963

950

950

Feed-waste-dockage

7,309

6,382

5,598

7,633

5,700

5,700

Domestic demand

TOTAL USE

9,820

8,789

7,969

10,412

8,180

8,530

Exports

1,987

1,835

1,543

1,931.6

735

1,225

2,235

TOTAL USE

13,084

13,053

12,528

12,700.4

11,270

12,675

TOTAL CARRY-OVER

1,708

1,128

989

1,424.6

661

1,855

TOTAL CARRY-OVER

2,583

1,441

1,241

2,159

1,139

1/includes barley processed domestically and then exported as malt

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

C at t l e m e n · O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

51

 GOINGS O N

Sales&Events EVENTS

6-10

OCTOBER 22-23

ivestock Gentec 4th Annual L Conference, Coast Plaza Hotel, Edmonton, Alta.,

www.livestockgentec.com 23 FACS — Media Training Workshop, U. of Sask., Saskatoon, Sask., facs@sasktel.net or 306-249-3227 25-26 23rd Annual Edam Fall Fair — Commercial Cattle Show and Sale, Edam Community Centre, Edam, Sask.

31-Nov. 2 Manitoba Livestock Expo, Brandon, Man.

November 1-10 1

2 2-9 6

oyal Agricultural Winter Fair, R Exhibition Place, Toronto, Ont. Young Canadian Simmental Show, Exhibition Place, Toronto, Ont. See more at: http://www.royalfair. org/agriculture-competitions/ farm-animals Harvest Gala, Northlands, Edmonton, Alta.

Farmfair International, Northlands, Edmonton, Alta.

Canadian Gelbvieh Association AGM, Northlands, Edmonton, Alta.

anadian Limousin Association C National Show and Sale, Northlands, Edmonton, Alta.

6-9 Agritrade, Westerner Park, Red Deer, Alta.

7 National Gelbvieh Show, Farmfair International, Edmonton, Alta.

10-16 Canadian Western Agribition, Evraz Place, Regina, Sask.

13-14 Sweetheart Calssic Gelbvieh Futurity, Evraz Place, Regina, Sask.

21 Best of Canadian Agrimarketing Awards, Chateau Frontenac, Quebec City, Que. Canfax Forum, Deerfoot Inn, 26-27 Calgary, Alta.

29-Dec. 1 Canadian People’s Choice Gelbvieh Bull Futurity and Wishlist Weekend, Westerner, Red Deer, Alta.

December 2-4

4

9-11

11

 ADVERTI S E R I N D EX

lberta Beef Producers Annual A General Meeting, Sheraton Cavalier, Calgary, Alta.

FACS — Social Media Workshops, Travelodge Hotel, Saskatoon, Sask. facs@sasktel.net or 306-249-3227 Canada’s Forage and Grassland Association Conference and AGM, Pomeroy Inn, Olds, Alta.

Canadian Angus Association — Grand Opening of Angus Central , Balzac, Alta.

February Page 4-5 Manitoba Beef Producers 35th Agriculture for Life 13 Alberta Beef Producers 15 Annual General Meeting, Victoria Canadian Angus Assoc.

IFC Inn, Brandon, Man., www.mbbeef.ca Canadian Charolais Assoc.

OBC Canadian Gelbvieh Assoc.

44 Canadian Hereford Assoc.

44 L I V E S T O C K C A R E Canadian Shorthorn Assoc.

44 L I V E S T O C K C A R E Canadian Simmental Assoc.

44 Canadian Welsh Black Society 44 Canadian Western Agribition 29 Help Line & Resource Team Case-IH 8, 9 Help Line & Resource Team To report care Direct Livestock Marketing 41 L I V Elivestock S T O C K concerns C A R E To report livestock care concerns General Motors IBC CALL Help Line & Resource Team 40 Greener Pastures CALL International Stock Foods 44 afac.ab.ca Supported by Alberta’s Livestock Industry 27 Kubota Canada Help Line & Resource Team afac.ab.ca Supported by Alberta’s Livestock Industry Livestock Gentec 47 To report livestock care concerns Merck Animal Health 5, 21, 37 New Holland 18, 19 CALL Northlands afac.ab.ca Farmfair International 35 Supported by Alberta’s Livestock Industry Plain Jans 44 afac.ab.ca Supported by Alberta’s Livestock Industry Salers Assoc. of Canada 44

Sales October 25

S ix Mile Red Angus Female Production Sale, at the ranch, Fir Mountain, Sask.

November 29- 30

rowfoot Cattle Co. Complete Red C and Black Angus Dispersal, at the ranch, Strathmore, Alta., www.crowfootcattle.com

January 25

C Quantock “Canada’s Bulls” Bull M Sale — 450 Bulls, Lloydminster Exhibition, Lloydminster, Sask.

February 1

ill 70 Quantock “Barn Burnin’ Bull H Sale,” at the ranch, Lloydminster, Sask.

March 1

avidson Gelbvieh and Lonesome D Dove Ranch 25th Anniversary Bull Sale, Bull Yards, Ponteix, Sask. c

 Event listings are a free service to industry.  Sale listings are for our advertisers.

Your contact is Deborah Wilson at 403-325-1695 or deb.wilson@fbcpublishing.com

STAMPEDE

By Gerry Palen

ALERT ALERT ALERT 1-800-506-2273 ALERT

L I V E S T O C K

C A R E

To report livestock care concerns 1-800-506-2273 CALL

1-800-506-2273

1-800-506-2273

52

C at t l e m e n · o c t o b e r 2 0 1 3

“That’s not funny, Flo.”

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

L:7”

all haul, the king of heavy duty.

MOBILE ENABLED

2013 Silverado HD

L:10”

VISIT CHEVROLET.CA

1 Large Pickup class per R.L. Polk Canada, Inc. Towing capacity as shown is 15,800 lbs. (7,167 kg). 2 Based on latest competitor data available.

Chevrolet Silverado — King of Heavy Duty — winner of the 2013 Canadian Truck King Challenge.

• Best-in-Class Towing 23,100 lbs.1 • Best-in-Class Warranty2

CCA Fall 13.indd 1

9/18/2013 10:41:57 AM