Cct140623 by Farm Business Communications

HUNTING JOHNE’S · ASSESSING VENEREAL DISEASE RISK

THE BEEF MAGAZINE

June 2014 $3.00

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

NO HAY

HERE PLUS

Rethinking the public perception of genomics 16 NCFA settles in 32 Publications Mail Agreement Number 40069240

John and Tanis Cross Nanton, Alta.

SVG_017_SelectVac_2014_JA_E_Cattlemen Magazine_Layout 1 14-05-14 4:45 PM Page 1

CANADA’S PREMIER HERD HEALT LH LT V CCINAT VA A ION AT PROGRAM JUST GOT BETTER. The recent addition of Bovi-Shield GOLD One Shot™ to the SelectVac Gold Plus (formerly Pfizer Gold Plus) herd health vaccination protocols allows you to vaccinate with one less needle for superior results and protection. Market your calves this fall as SelectVac Gold Plus which qualifies them for Canada’s only 0% BRD PULL RATE GUARANTEE.* Bovi-Shield GOLD One Shot is a significant advancement in combination vaccine technology — that’s why it’s now included as the #1 option in the SelectVac Gold program. Go to www.selectvacgold.ca today to register your herd online. Print your certificate right away or print a blank registration form that can be faxed or mailed.

INTRODUCING

CANADA’S FIRST 0% BRD PULL RATE * GUARANTEE

SelectVac Gold has provided peace of mind for professional cattlemen and cattlewomen, and protection for millions of calves for over a decade.

* To qualify for the 0% BRD Pull Rate Guarantee your calves must be registered online as SelectVac Gold Plus calves at selectvacgold.ca Zoetis™, SelectVac Gold™ and Bovi-Shield GOLD One Shot™ are trademarks of Zoetis Inc. or its subsidiary and used under licence by Zoetis Canada Inc. ©2014 Zoetis Inc. All rights reserved.

SVG JAD01 1405 E

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

Contents CANADIAN CATTLEMEN · JUNE 2014 · VOLUME 77, NO. 6

M A NAG E M E N T

Field Editor: Debbie Furber Box 1168, Tisdale, SK S0E 1T0 (306) 873-4360 Fax (306) 873-4360 Email: debbie.furber@fbcpublishing.com ADVERTISING SALES Deborah Wilson RR 1, Lousana, AB T0M 1K0 (403) 325-1695 Fax (403) 944-5562 Email: deb.wilson@fbcpublishing.com Crystal McPeak (403) 646-6211 / (403) 360-3210 Email: crystal@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 Email: ads@fbcpublishing.com

John and Tanis Cross on the A7.

Publisher: Lynda Tityk Email: lynda.tityk@fbcpublishing.com Associate Publisher/Editorial Director: John Morriss Email: john.morriss@fbcpublishing.com Production Director: Shawna Gibson Email: shawna@fbcpublishing.com Circulation Manager: Heather Anderson Email: heather@fbcpublishing.com

NO HAY HERE

 M A R K ET I NG

FEATURES

President: Bob Willcox Glacier FarmMedia Email: bwillcox@farmmedia.com

Assessing risks for venereal disease in cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 No hay here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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.

My best employee ever! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Cattlemen and Canadian Cattlemen are Trade Marks of Farm Business Communications. Cattlemen is published monthly by Farm Business Communications. Head office: Winnipeg, Manitoba. Printed by Transcontinental LGMC. Cattlemen is printed with linseed oil-based inks.

Rethinking the public perception of genomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Subscription rates in Canada — $39 for one year, $58 for 2 years, $83 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.

Free range, grass-fed beef, born and grazed in Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

We acknowledge the financial support of the Govern ment 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.

My best employee ever!

Soil bugs never strike.  G R A Z I NG

PRINTED IN CANADA

NCFA settles into its role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

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

Member

Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

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.

Verified Beef Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

DEPARTMENTS

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.

Hunting for Johne’s disease in Saskatchewan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Vet Advice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Free range, grass-fed 20 beef, born and grazed in Hawaii

Congratulations!

Research on the Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Holistic Ranching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 CCA Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Straight from the Hip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Prime Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 News Roundup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

To our June survey winner, Timothy & Louella Martin, Chesley, Ont. This month’s survey is on page 42.

Purely Purebred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Cover Photo: Debbie Furber

Sales and Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

The Markets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Market Talk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

C AT T L E M E N · J U N E 2 0 1 4

 COMMEN T

By Gren Winslow

Take aim at the precautionary principle It stifles innovation

ou have to give the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) some credit for the nerve to tackle one of the big dogs that has taken a huge bite out of the livestock industry for several decades now. In a white paper released in May, The Precautionary Principle and Animal Agriculture, this non-profit association takes direct aim at one of the biggest drags on modern day agriculture. I can’t say for sure why this topic caught my interest. Perhaps it was McDonald’s decision to turn to Canada as the testing ground for their certified sustainable beef program, or maybe I was looking for something to take my mind off the continuing war of words in a Washington court over the legal legitimacy of the U.S. countryof-origin labelling. Whatever it was I’m glad I picked up their report. This is one of those topics we can’t help returning to over and over again. It seems like the precautionary principle has been the rallying cry for environmental and other activist groups since the early ’80s when it was used to stir up public opinion in Europe against the use of hormones in beef. Even when it is not officially adopted as policy by governments it still worms its way into political debates and regulations much as it did in the 1980s in Europe. Better safe than sorry sounds a sane enough idea, but not without a clear definition of what is safe. Without that it is just a coward’s means to do nothing. At its worst the precautionary principle stifles innovation. And that could be a costly mistake today when the world desperately needs new technology to grow enough food for an expanding global population. “The precautionary principle could be used to prevent any new technology or product from being utilized if a person perceives that it might cause harm — and this belief takes hold without any consideration being given to the risks associated with the technology or product not being adopted,” says Dr. Mark Walton with Recombinetics, a Minnesota firm that has developed a gene editing technology for animal breeding, and one of the sources of the NIAA white paper. “When selectively applied to politically disfavoured technologies and conduct, the precautionary principle is a barrier to technological development and economic growth,” he adds. A now famous case in point is the cautionary tale of the AquAdvantage salmon. It is a genetically modified variety of Atlantic salmon that has a single gene from a Chinook salmon spliced into its genome. This amounts to a change of 0.0001 per cent of the salmon’s DNA but with it AquAdvantage salmon reach 100 grams in 138 fewer days, are ready to

C at t l e m e n · j u n e 2 0 1 4

market in half the time, consume 20 per cent less feed and have a five per cent better nitrogen retention than regular Atlantic salmon No one is saying that this type of innovation shouldn’t be thoroughly examined and tested before it is approved to go into the North American food supply but this genetically enhanced fish has been under review by the U.S. government for 19 years. In 2010 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration finally deemed it as safe as any other Atlantic salmon to consume and no risk to the environment since it is grown in a contained environment. Yet it is still not approved, apparently held hostage by the precautionary principle.

etter safe than sorry sounds B a sane idea but not without a clear definition of what is safe. Without that it is just a coward’s means to do nothing Alaskan fisheries, activist lawyers, organic growers, non-profit voluntary citizen groups and the states of California, Oregon and Washington oppose it. Supporting the new strain are agricultural production states, production associations like NIAA, academics, animal health companies, and scientific associations. It is a familiar story and so far those on the precautionary side of these arguments seem to be winning, at least when it concerns enhanced animals. NIAA says the company that developed AquAdvantage salmon has already invested more than $70 million in the project and has been close to bankruptcy four times. This is hardly an inducement to other innovators to try their hand at this technology. NIAA’s solution is to attempt to set the bar for evaluating new livestock technology based on its sustainability rather than the precautionary principle. In that vein NIAA is heartened by the efforts of McDonald’s, Walmart, Cargill, JBS, Tyson and groups like the World Wildlife Fund to create a global criteria to define sustainable beef. That will eventually provide key production and environmental performance indicators that an industry can adopt. Perhaps this is one way to regain the trust of the consuming public sufficiently to do away with the fearfirst precautionary principle once and for all. c

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Case IH has all the tools you need for cutting, conditioning, raking and baling. And now with the Spring Sales Event, you can include saving. That’s because new Farmall®, Puma® and Maxxum® series tractors and our complete line of hay tools are available at a special rate for a limited time. Get in to your dealer today or visit caseih.com/specialoffers.

0% FINANCING FOR

60 MONTHS

on new Farmall and Maxxum series tractors and hay & forage equipment. 0% for 24 months** followed by the customer qualified rate on new Puma series tractors.

*For commercial use only. Customer participation subject to credit qualification and approval by CNH Industrial Capital Canada Ltd. See your Case IH dealer for details and eligibility requirements. Down payment may be required. Offer good through June 30, 2014. Not all customers or applicants may qualify for this rate or term. CNH Industrial Capital Canada Ltd. standard terms and conditions will apply. This transaction will be unconditionally interest free. Example: The interest rate will be 0.00% per annum for a total contract term of 60 months: Based on a retail contract date of April 15, 2014, with a suggested retail price on a new Farmall 105U with L735 loader of C$94,500.00, customer provides down payment of C$18,900.00 and finances the balance of C$75,600.00 at 0.00% per annum for 60 months. There will be 59 equal monthly installments of C$1,260.00 each, the first due on May 15, 2014 and one final installment of C$1,260.00 due on April 15, 2019. The total amount payable will be C$94,500.00, which includes finance charges of C$0.00. Taxes, freight, set-up, delivery, additional options or attachments not included in suggested retail price. Offer subject to change or cancellation without notice. New Farmall series tractors, new Maxxum series tractors and new major Case IH hay and forage equipment (round balers, small square balers, disc mower conditioners, large square balers, SP windrowers & headers, sickle mower conditioners and PT forage harvesters and headers) are eligible for 0% financing for 60 months. **For commercial use only. Customer participation subject to credit qualification and approval by CNH Industrial Capital Canada Ltd. See your Case IH dealer for details and eligibility requirements. Down payment may be required. Offer good through June 30, 2014. Not all customers or applicants may qualify for this rate or term. CNH Industrial Capital Canada Ltd. standard terms and conditions will apply. Example: The interest rate will be 0.00% per annum for 24 months followed by a customer qualified rate of 4.99% per annum until April 15, 2019. Total contract term is 60 months. Based on a retail contract date of April 15, 2014, with a suggested retail price on a new Puma 145 CVT tractor with L765 Loader of C$165,310.00, customer provides down payment of C$33,061.00 and finances the balance of C$132,249.00 at 0.00% per annum for 24 months followed by a customer qualified rate of 4.99% per annum until April 15, 2019. There will be 4 equal annual installments of C$27,996.57 each, the first due on April 15, 2015 and one final installment of $27,996.54 due on April 15, 2019. The total amount payable will be C$173,043.82, which includes finance charges of C$7,733.82. Taxes, freight, set-up, delivery, additional options or attachments not included in suggested retail price. Offer subject to change or cancellation without notice. ©2014 CNH Industrial America LLC. All rights reserved. Case IH is a trademark registered in the United States and many other countries, owned by or licensed to CNH Industrial N.V., its subsidiaries or affiliates. CNH Industrial Capital is a trademark in the United States and many other countries, owned by or licensed to CNH Industrial N.V., its subsidiaries or affiliates. www.caseih.com

 THE INDUST RY

NewsMakers John Baker resigned his position as executive vice-president of global marketing with Canada Beef last month to start his own consulting firm of Baker Marketing/ Strategies International. John Baker Baker was in charge of domestic and international marketing staff at CBI. He initially joined the producer-run Beef Information Centre as retail merchandising manager in 1999 and rose to executive director from 2005 to 2011 until the merger with Canada Beef Export Federation created CBI.

Lary Fossum

Linda Allison

Lary Fossum of Dawson Creek is the new president of the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association. Linda Allison of Princeton is vice-president. (For more see our News Roundup section.) Jim Fraser is the new chair of the Nova Scotia Cattle Producers. Joining him on the executive are vice-chair Larry Weatherby, treasurer Vlad Mudra and past chair Terry Prescott. Their Canadian Cattlemen’s Association representative is George Smith.

David Martens and Sons Ltd., a cow-calf, feedlot and haying operation near Vanderhoof, was selected as the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association 2014 enviRichard Martens ronmental stewardship award winner at the group’s annual meeting last month. Richard and Nancy Martens operate the beef division and have spearheaded a large number of riparNancy Martens ian projects and set up the Murray Creek Demonstration Site on the second-generation farm. The Canadian Cattle Identification Agency’s 19-member board of directors has selected its new executive for 2014/15. Canadian Veterinary Medical AssoPat Burrage ciation representative Pat Burrage continues as board chair while Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association representative Mark Elford is vice-chair and Maritime Beef Council representative John Tilley, finance and audit committee chair. Canadian Cattlemen’s Association representative Pat Hayes and Livestock Markets Association of Canada representative Rick Wright are the directors at large. Dr. Brian Evans was presented with an honourary Doctor of Law degree from

the University of Calgary last month in recognition of his achievements as chief veterinary officer and executive vicepresident of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Canada’s first chief food safety officer. Judy Sweet and her family donated $200,000 to Lakeland College to further livestock research in memory of her late husband Garth Sweet who died in 2001. Garth and Judy built up T4S Simmentals of Drayton Valley, Alta. The money came from the family’s Sportaken Holdings and the Garth Sweet Simmental Foundation. Dr. Tracy Edwards, president of Lakeland College, says the donations will help the college in its efforts to expand into several areas of interest such as RFI research, breed-specific testing for growth performance and genetic correlations in beef cattle.

Ken and Tammy Perlich

The Canadian Angus Association (CAA) presented Perlich Brothers Auction Market from Lethbridge with its Auction Market of the Year Award. This award was presented to Ken and Tammy Perlich (centre) by CAA director of field services, Brian Good, at the Livestock Markets Association of Canada annual conference. Shannon Argent of Cremona is the new provincial co-ordinator for the national Verified Beef Production (VBP) program in Alberta where she will be managing education and on-farm audit services for cow-calf and feedlot producers participating in the national beef on-farm food safety program. Formerly an animal health technician, Argent has also worked in both the genetics and communication sectors. She and her family own a cow-calf operation northwest of Calgary. c

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

 our histo ry

By Harold Baldwin

Wanted — A Bridge Abridged from the Sept. 1946 issue of Canadian Cattlemen

t Saskatchewan Landing, 25 miles north of the city of Swift Current, Highway No. 4, one of the main arteries of Saskatchewan’s road network, dives into the South Saskatchewan River to emerge on the farther shore. For a quarter of a century, press and public of southwest Saskatchewan have pleaded with every government for a bridge to replace the ferry. How long this particular spot has been used for negotiating the South Saskatchewan is a matter of conjecture and research. The Indians had some sort of crossing device here before palefaces came nosing about. In the late ’80s and early ’90s, local ranchers operated a ferry. Carts, wagons, oxen, cowboys, Indian bands and métis used it. Tractor, truck, car and ultra-modern, Saskatchewan-owned bus are obliged to use the ferry service of 1946. “Jim” Smart operated the ferry in 1891, and he still dwells three miles from the Landing. Ninety-four years old, he is still a fine figure of a man in a strong and lusty late winter of life. James Laurie Smart hit these regions when they were very much territory, in 1888. He had conveyed 175 green Britons to work on farms of the Canadian Agricultural Coal and Colonization Company; in other words the “76.” The name was adopted from the brand on the first mob of cattle brought from over the international boundary for the company. For two years after riding herd on the immigrants Jim Smart was stock foreman on the “76,” then went into partnership with one of the most indomitable characters of all the genus homo in these parts, Harry Y. Young. Young made an epic bid for fortune when he undertook to drive a herd of beef steers from the Saskatchewan River to the Yukon to feed the meat-eating argonauts of the ’98 gold rush. He got well on his way, too. That, however, is a story that demands a separate place. R.H. Hamilton ran the ferry from 1921 to 1927. “Dick” bestrode a cavalry horse in the early and closing days of the First World War. He forked a cow horse in southwest

Saskatchewan, riding for the locally famous Bill Shaw Outfit. Bill Shaw had bought out his erstwhile partner, Harry White, who hated the relentless advance of the homesteader. So much so, he bought himself an island off the coast of Queensland. Dick Hamilton once took over an 85-horsepower steam engine, hefting about 30 tons. Bidding everybody get off the scow so that the last ounce of extra weight be eliminated, Hamilton accepted the challenge to tote this juggernaut across the river. The overhead cable bent like an overwrought bowstring; the ferry took water just below deck level, but slowly, every pulley creaking, cable strumming with tension, the old river gurgling in unholy anticipation, the old scow responded heroically. A feat of which ex-trooper Dick and his ferry mate like to boast was that of the

transportation of 375 head of cattle in 45 minutes. The air was filled with rolling dust clouds; clashing horns; dry running of hides on hides; the unnerving rustle of myriad hoofs on trek, potentially dangerous if stampeded. Those days fitted in with a ferry at the Landing; fitted in with ranch and rope and spur; cow horse and ranging herd; the hipless cowboy, spare cavalier of the unraped plains. And before the ferry gives place to a commodious bridge, worthy of Highway No. 4, and the mounting commerce of today, its history and life must be recorded in the archives of this province. c For more of the past from the pages of our magazine see the History section at www.canadiancattlemen.ca.

“When I ride out to treat calves on pasture, I need a product that works fast and I know will last...because I’m only doing this once.”

Summer pneumonia is a challenge anytime you have calves on grass. Treat them with a product that gets to work right away1 and gives long lasting2 action in a single dose. Treat them with the product that is safe3 to handle, and comes in a plastic bottle that you can toss in your saddlebag.

Treat them with ZACTRAN®.

Ask your veterinarian why ZACTRAN is ideal for cattle on your ranch.

1. Giguère S, Huang R, Malinski TJ, Dorr PM, Tessman RK & Somerville BA. Disposition of gamithromycin in plasma, pulmonary epithelial lining fluid, bronchoalveolar cells, and lung tissue in cattle. Am. J. Vet. Res. 72(3): 326-330 (2011). 2. Based on label claims. 3. See ZACTRAN MSDS. ZACTRAN ® is a registered trademark of Merial Limited. © 2014 Merial Canada Inc. All rights reserved. ZACT-13-7557-JAD-E

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

Client: Merial Project: Zactran Cow/Calf

Publication: Canadian Cattlemen Size: 4.58” x 5”

Agency: ON Communication Inc Agency Contact: Raellen Seaman

 health

By Heather Smith Thomas

Assessing Risks for Venereal Disease in Cattle

here are several sexually transmitted diseases in cattle that can be costly if they sneak into your herd, resulting in reproductive losses, says Dr. Cheryl Waldner, professor of epidemiology at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon. “Diseases we’ve seen in the last few years that are having an important impact on reproductive performance — and the ones producers should never forget — are BVD and IBR. The other two are trichomoniasis and vibrio, which can present a serious problem, depending on how ranchers manage their animals,” she says. Vibrio is also known as bovine genital campylobacteriosis. If your cattle come into contact with other herds this will increase the risk. Cattle grazed on community pastures, or that have fenceline contact with neighbours’ cattle may be at risk. Even people who have a closed herd may occasionally have a neighbour’s bull come through the fence, or a cow go visiting. All it takes is a broken fence to end up with a problem. “For trich and vibrio there must be direct sexual contact. BVD is more communicable and can be passed across fencelines with nose-to-nose contact, or via common water sources as well as through sexual contact. If you buy an infected bull he may spread BVD to your cows in several ways,” says Waldner. “The good news for BVD is that there’s a fairly good vaccine. One of the things we’ve learned from data analysis is that we can see a difference with vaccination, especially on community pastures. We have direct evidence that it does pay to vaccinate for BVD and IBR,” she says. “There is a difference in pregnancy rates in community pastures for cows that are vaccinated compared to ones that are not. The vaccine gives sufficient protection, so their pregnancy rates should be the same as the cows kept at home. If their vaccines are up to date there shouldn’t be any problem. The only cows that showed up with lower pregnancy rates were the ones that were not vaccinated,” Waldner says. “Some diseases are very frustrating because there is not always an easy fix, but with BVD vaccination does help. The picture becomes more clouded when dealing with trich and

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

The best form of prevention for trich and vibrio is to minimize contact with infected bulls.

vibrio. We don’t have a good vaccine for trich. We do have vaccine products for vibrio but we don’t know as much about how well they work; they haven’t been studied as much as the BVD vaccines. Even though we don’t know as much about them, I would recommend the use of vibrio vaccines if a person is using community pastures. It will provide some insurance,” she says. BIOSECURITY AND TESTING

“Best prevention for trich and vibrio is to minimize chances for cows to be exposed to an infected bull. If you are in a high-risk or communal grazing situation, make sure all bulls are tested,” says Waldner. “We have good tests for trich. If there is any suspicion that there is risk for exposure, you need three tests — even with the newer PCR tests — to make sure a bull is not carrying this disease. The PCR test can be more sensitive than the old culture tests but still not perfect.

It might not pick up a positive bull because an infected bull might not be shedding large numbers of organisms at the time of the test. The level of trich shed by the bull can fluctuate.” You have more chance of finding the organism if you test more than once. “You need three tests before you can safely call a bull negative for trich. Every additional negative test gives you more confidence. You know a lot more about a bull by testing once than if you don’t test at all, and you know even more if you test twice. But to be sure the bull is negative, particularly from a herd with a history of reproductive problems, it’s best to test three times,” she explains. “The same applies to the new vibrio tests. To be absolutely sure that a bull is negative, we suggest having three tests,” Waldner says. Both the trich and the vibrio tests are Continued on page 9

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

health

Continued from page 8

done in the same manner, taking samples of material inside the bull’s sheath. “The veterinarian uses an AI pipette attached to a syringe and takes a certain amount of sample. Depending on where the sample is going (which lab), there are different options. Most of the trich tests are still done using incubation pouches for shipping the samples (the pouches we used to use when we were doing cultures) but we can also put the sample into phosphate-buffered saline — a special salt solution. The nice thing about that method is that it is cheaper, which helps when you are doing a large group of bulls,” she explains. “The good thing about collecting samples into the PBS solution is that you can collect a single sample and test for both organisms (trich and vibrio). This saves money because you only have to collect one sample, it goes into the cheaper phosphate-buffered saline and you don’t have to keep the samples warm like we did with the old culture pouches. With the old cultures there could be problems if you tested early in the year and the sample froze on the way to the lab. With the new tests you can just put the samples on ice packs to keep cool and can send them any time of year and they will be fine,” says Waldner. “The only caution with vibrio testing is that the amount of organism the bull is shedding seems to fluctuate. Testing bulls in really cold weather doesn’t seem to be as effective or accurate as testing them when weather is warmer. The test for trich is not as fussy; those organisms do not seem as sensitive to cold. We have noticed that the vibrio test is less sensitive in cold weather, especially as temperatures drop below 0 C. When the temperature is 5 C or warmer the test is more accurate,” she explains. “If you decide to test just once for vibrio, make sure the weather is warm. If you are testing only once and it’s -20 C, there’s a good chance you could miss this organism. We have found positives when it’s cold, but you are less likely to find all the positive bulls in cold weather. If you have a bull you want to keep over for next year, you should either check him in the early fall before it gets cold, or be prepared to wait until spring when it warms up,” she says. POOLED SAMPLES

For both tests, if you have a large number of bulls to check, you can do it more cheaply by having the lab pool samples before testing. “You still collect the individual bull www.canadiancattlemen.ca

samples, but for the PCR test you can test them in groups. If you strongly suspect a problem you should still run each sample individually — to identify the positive bulls and only have to do it once. But if you are just screening a group of bulls, to be sure they are all negative, you can do them in groups of five and save a lot of money on the lab costs,” she says.

“ We have to realize that whether it’s vibrio, IBR or BVD, no vaccine is perfect.” Dr. Cheryl Waldner WCVM

If you have 15 bulls, for example, you would collect the 15 samples and the veterinarian would send those samples to the lab, but you can request that they be pooled. “The evidence we have right now suggests that we could probably group them in larger batches, but pools of five can still save significant expense. If the test comes back negative you are OK, but if it’s positive you’d have to go back and check each one again individually. This is why you don’t want your pool size too large, or it becomes more expensive having to do those bulls all over again to find out which one(s) were positive,” explains Waldner. Pooling samples can be beneficial, however, if you need your bulls tested before they go to community pasture and you

don’t have any reason to believe your herd is currently infected (pregnancy rate is high). It can also be beneficial if you have large numbers of bulls to do, saving money on the individual testing if there’s a likelihood that you won’t have to go back and recheck very many of them. BEST TO TEST

In the U.S. many western states require trich testing before each breeding season — before the bulls can be turned out — in an effort to control this disease. “So far, no Canadian provinces require an official test, but producers are encouraged to test if they use community pastures. Some of the private grazing leases may require tests, not allowing use of any positive bulls. A group of producers running their own grazing lease might test all bulls, just to make sure they don’t bring in a problem. This can be done fairly economically with the pooled tests. With the number of problems we’ve been seeing in the last few years, it would pay to test bulls in highrisk situations.” Some grazing associations are requiring tests for trich, and request that the cows be vaccinated against BVD or have a calf at foot (evidence they didn’t abort from reproductive disease). “I don’t know if any grazing leases require vibrio vaccination of cows, but some may strongly recommend it,” says Waldner. “We have to realize that whether it’s vibrio, IBR or BVD, no vaccine is perfect; not all cows mount adequate immunity. It’s safest to use a combination of approaches and not rely entirely on vaccine. If you have a highrisk situation you should consider vaccinating and also do your best to make sure that bulls going into the herd are clean and not carrying diseases. They can be tested for BVD with ear notch samples. This test is inexpensive and can be beneficial when bringing in new bulls — to make sure none have BVD. If you are bringing in virgin yearling bulls the chances that they would be positive for trich or vibrio are very low, but they could be carrying BVD. These are the bulls that should definitely have the BVD test.” It may seem like a costly inconvenience to test bulls, but it may save a much greater cost by preventing reproductive losses. “Trich and vibrio are devastating. Some of the pregnancy rates that we’ve seen in affected herds (a 30 to 50 per cent calf crop) can wipe out a producer. There are very few ranchers who can deal with one year of that kind of loss, let alone several.” c

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

 COVER STO RY · M A NAG E M E N T

By Debbie Furber HEADER

NO HAY HERE The evolution of grazing on A7

he southern Alberta foothills back of Nanton have long been known as prime ranch land, distinguished by productive clay soils with great waterholding capacity, plentiful springs and a reasonably amicable climate. That’s just part of the story behind why you’ll no longer find hay on A7 Ranche, now in the hands of the third and fourth generations of the Cross family, John and his daughter, Tanis. As Cross says, the story is written on the land. It starts in 1886, when his grandfather, A.E. Cross, a veterinarian from Montreal, recognized the attributes of the area and began purchasing land from homesteaders to raise quality cattle rather than going the big-lease route. He registered the a7 brand symbolizing himself and his seven siblings. Cross’s dad, John, began managing the ranch as he and his two brothers took over upon their dad’s passing in 1932. They expanded through to the mid-1960s, when his dad bought out his brothers and continued to add to the land base. In 1986, his father split the ranch among John, his brother and sister, each of whom continue to ranch today. So it was that 100 years after his grandfather set down roots, John acquired the home place that comprises A7’s 13,000 acres today. Never one to shy away from trying new management strategies, his tenure has been marked by innovation. It began with a thistle problem. Experience had tilted his dad’s management strategy to the conservative side, he explains, and selective grazing had led to thistle infestations that proved difficult and expensive to control with herbicides of the day.

C AT T L E M E N · J U N E 2 0 1 4

Cross’s search for an alternative steered him toward holistic management, which in 1990 was new in Canada and quite controversial, largely because the fundamentalist view shunned modern science. “Range science is an important component of total ranch management,” Cross says, “but how do you put all of the pieces together to manage a ranch? What’s the complete picture? With holistic management, there’s lots of good information out there, but how do you make it work on a large scale? “I consider myself very fortunate to have the opportunity to own and manage this land. I like to experiment with new ways of managing the land and when I was first learning about holistic management, I was, to quote Dylan Biggs, ‘more enthusiastic than I had the right to be.’ For that I apologize. I’ve recognized since then that holistic management doesn’t need to be at odds with any other types of management practices. The most important part of holistic management for me is the value of a good-quality thought model that, if used in honest ways, helps me make decisions on where to go. With limited resources, where do I spend the next dollars? “What I am working on at my place is a combination of experimentation and research and I would in no way want to suggest that what I do would apply to anyone else’s place.” FIRST “NEXT” DOLLARS

The planned-grazing framework seemed to offer an option for thistle control and it had potential to address another problem he had come to recognize. Underutilization

of upland range was letting succession take its course with the encroachment of shrubs and poplars on open grassland. At the same time, riparian areas were being overused. The first step was to build more permanent fencing to gain control over the grazing of riparian areas and make better use of upland forage, with the goal of maintaining open grassland with clean water in very healthy riparian areas. This alone gave him a 20 per cent increase in grass production. Adding a year-round pipeline supplied by an upland spring and further subdividing pastures with temporary fencing bumped up efficiency by another 20 per cent. A lesson learned with that exercise was to design the water system before building the fences. By understanding why and when to move cattle, he has improved the quality of the landscape and ranch profitability. He now carries more cattle on his land than when he used to have an additional onethird interest in another range. Today, the herd grazes year-round with the mature cows in one group and the firstand second-calvers together. In February, the weaned calves form a third group that’s marketed off grass sometime in summer. The yearling program gives him the option to quickly de-stock in dry years and, because the cows winter the calves very economically, the margin is good — an evolution from his forefathers’ days when finished steers were marketed as four-year olds, he adds. TWO GRAZING SEASONS; TWO PLANNING SEASONS

There have been cattle out on this range for

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

management

a good part of the year ever since the ranch’s earliest days simply because weather conditions are favourable, but there was always a supply of stored hay for backup when it turned miserable. “I saw I always had stockpiled grass and the opportunity for grazing it,” he says. “At the same time, I always had an inventory of hay that was adding up year after year and its quality was lower than the stockpiled grass.” The new opportunity was to let the cows do the haying as needed through the winter. The wild card was snow. On average there’s 30 days of snow cover, but sometimes there’s none and other years the hills are blanketed for three months. Cross’s solution when the snow gets too deep for the cows to graze through on their own is to plow off an area that gives them a day’s worth of grazing at a time. Any more and the uneaten grass will crust over. He found that out by experimenting a little each year with this idea, until he gradually phased out hay altogether. Temporary wire is used to control winter grazing using remaining litter cover as a guide to when he should move them to another pasture. Plowing alone can control grazing when snow builds up to a good two feet because the herds tend to stay put in the cleared area. If they look full at the end of the day, he knows he’s given them enough; if not, he’ll clear a larger area the next day. Snow removal might sound like a lot of work and expense, he says, but it’s proven to be more efficient on both accounts than putting up hay and feeding bales while losing the litter cover and feed quality over time. He’s found that grazing stockpiled forages works well on tame pasture dominated by Kentucky bluegrass, creeping red fescue or meadow brome, but not as well on smooth brome and timothy regrowth. One drawback is that grass quality can be quite poor if there’s much precipitation before freeze-up. A protein energy supplement appropriate for the class of cattle and end market is fed daily from December 1 through mid-April. “Our growing season is only about 90 days, so the goal for summer grazing is to try to clip everything so it stays more vegetative to end up with good-quality stockpiled forage for nine months,” Cross explains. Growing season planning revolves around timing, not forage height. The general practice is three to five days on a pasture and 90 days off. The reasoning is that healthy plants start to regrow about three days after they’ve been nipped and grazwww.canadiancattlemen.ca

John and his daughter Tanis are the third and fourth generation of the Cross family on the A7.

ing the new growth without giving the root system time to catch up weakens the plants. The 90-day recovery period has proven to be best for maintaining productive pastures on his place. The only time he considers shortening it is on tame pastures if a grazing would improve quality for dormant-season use without compromising plant health. Winter dormancy doesn’t count as part of the recovery period therefore pastures grazed toward the end of a growing season, when plant growth naturally slows, need to be given the remainder of the 90-day recovery time at the start of the next growing season. Likewise, grazing stockpiled forage in winter doesn’t count as a grazing if the plants have already recovered from the graze the previous year. With strong root systems they’ll regenerate quickly in spring. He is now trying some dormant-season strip grazing. Stockpiled grass contains small amounts of high-quality grass and large amounts of lower-quality grass. The idea is to increase grazing intensity so that the animals consume a better balance of feed on a daily basis to promote rumen function, he explains. It’s taken some experimenting as well to establish a production cycle that complements ranch resources. The traditional April-May calving period was often riddled with spring storms. He pushed it back as late as July-August only to

have problems with dehydration and scours in the calves and conception rates fell, likely due to the nutrition available at breeding in late fall. Not wanting to lose the genetics he had developed through the years, he started a slow progression back to settle on calving from mid-May through June. Marketing is a moving target

“We are always looking for hormone-free, natural beef markets if they will pay a premium, but we have to be flexible,” Cross says. Direct marketing grass-fed beef remains a small part of the program for open two-yearold heifers. Finding that direct marketing wasn’t scalable for an operation his size, he now works with Rachel and Tyler Herbert of Trail’s End Beef, who run the program. “Direct marketing was a very valuable learning experience because it taught me that we have to produce what customers want,” he says. “To move forward as an industry, we have to produce what customers require. If they want something different, we can provide it, so let’s just do it.” To position A7 Ranche to take advantage of opportunities as they arise, he uses age verification, good animal health protocols and the recognized Herdtrax management program. He’s also completed a formal environmental farm plan and taken the Verified Beef Production program. c

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

 Nutriti o n

By John McKinnon

Something More to Think About!

ast month we looked at the relationship between forage quality and plant maturity. Our focus was on how fibre levels increase with advancing plant maturity and the resulting negative influence on nutritive value of the forage. A second factor that has a negative impact on forage quality is the reduction in crude protein content that occurs as the plant matures. For example, the Saskatchewan Forage Council recently conducted a two-year survey on nutrient content of tame and native forages. The results averaged over four different soil zones showed that the crude protein content of alfalfa decreased from an average of 22 per cent in the spring to 15 per cent in the fall, while crested wheat grass declined from 11.9 per cent in the spring to 5.5 in the fall. Native species followed a similar pattern going from 13.5 per cent in the spring to 7.3 in the fall. This decline in protein content with advancing plant maturity is typical of pastures across the country and to understand its significance, it helps to have insight into the protein nutrition of cattle. Cattle like all mammals require protein as part of their diet. The requirement, however is not for protein per se; it is for amino acids. Amino acids are the basic building blocks of protein and are required by all mammals for basic body functions including pregnancy, lactation and growth. There are 20 biologically important amino acids that make up plant and animal sources of protein. Ten of these are considered essential in the diets of mammals (i.e. the animal cannot synthesize them). Examples include lysine, leucine and methionine. The remaining 10 have important roles; however, they are produced by the animal and thus are considered nonessential. Common to the structure of each amino acid is the presence of a nitrogen-containing amino group (i.e. NH2). This amino group is important to understanding how cattle meet their essential amino acid needs. In simple stomach animals such as pigs and chickens, the diet is the only source of essential amino acids. Production is limited if the diet is not adequately balanced. Fortunately this is not the case with cattle. As we have discussed previously in this column, the rumen is a site where bacteria ferment feed. This process provides energy to the animal and for bacteria growth, much of which involves protein synthesis. A unique aspect of this process is the ability of the rumen bacteria to take a poor-quality feed protein source, low in essential amino acids, and convert that protein to high-quality microbial protein. This conver-

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

sion is the result of the bacteria’s ability to break down amino acids and utilize the amino groups (i.e. NH2) to resynthesize both essential and non-essential amino acids. It is for this reason that it is also possible to feed cattle non-protein nitrogen sources such as urea. In this case, urea is hydrolyzed in the rumen to ammonia (NH3) and used by the bacteria to synthesize amino acids. This microbial protein and its essential amino acids are available to the animal for digestion when the bacteria pass out of the rumen and move to the small intestine. The ability of rumen microbes to synthesize amino acids which ultimately become available to the animal as microbial protein is the reason why in most production situations we do not worry about feed protein quality. Rather we focus on protein content and the availability of that protein to rumen bacteria. In order to understand the significance of this last statement let’s look at how feed protein is characterized for ruminants. The most common protein term you will encounter is crude protein. As the name implies, crude protein is a rough measure of the protein content of a given feed. It is based on a chemical analysis that measures nitrogen content. The crude protein percentage is calculated by multiplying the nitrogen content of the feed by a constant, typically 6.25. It does not consider amino acid content. As discussed above, this is not a concern in most production situations involving beef cattle. We are however concerned with the availability of the protein to rumen bacteria. To this end we classify feed protein sources as to their rumen availability. Rumen degradable protein (RDP) is feed protein that is readily available to rumen bacteria while rumen undegradable protein (RUP) is not available. This latter protein fraction bypasses the rumen and may or may not be available for digestion in the lower gut. Most feed sources provide a combination of RDP and RUP, the relative ratio depending on feed type. For example, alfalfa and barley silage are high in RDP while corn silage has a higher RUP content. Lush green pasture not only has higher crude protein content than mature pasture but also a higher RDP content. One might ask why care about feed crude protein content and its rumen degradability? The short answer is that RDP supports the growth and fermentation activity of the rumen bacteria which, in turn, provides the animal with its energy and protein needs. Lack of RDP can mean a reduction in performance. In next month’s column we will explore situations where strategic protein supplementation can make a difference in your bottom line. c

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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

MAKE THE MOST OF EVERY MINUTE. Vermeer, the Vermeer logo and Equipped to Do More are trademarks of Vermeer Manufacturing Company in the U.S. and/or other countries. ÂŠ 2014 Vermeer Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

CanadianCattlemanFullpg_SpecificAg_MaketheMostofEveryMinute.indd 1

EQUIPPEDTODOMORE.com

5/23/14 3:00 PM

 GRAZING

By Steve Kenyon

MY BEST EMPLOYEE EVER!

hen you run a business, it is always important to make sure you find and keep really good employees. To do this you need to follow a couple of simple rules. First, you need to make sure you make the working conditions favourable to attract good employees. This means you need to understand what they want, and what they don’t want. Second, you also need to accommodate their life goals in order to give them the desire to work for you. Employees work better if they have a passion for what they do. Does this sound like a sound plan that would allow you to attract and keep good employees? I think so and it works at all levels. If any of you have ever taken my school, or heard me at a seminar or conference, you might already know who my best employees are. They work hard and put

C AT T L E M E N · J U N E 2 0 1 4

in long hours. They don’t ever cause me any drama, they never ask for a day off and they never retire. My best employees are willing to work until they die. If you haven’t figured it out yet, the best employees at Greener Pastures are the soil organisms that recycle nutrients. The dung beetles, earthworms, nematodes, yeast, fungi, bacteria and all the rest of the critters that live in the soil all work for me. There are millions of interactions that occur beneath our feet but yet we know more about the solar system than we do our soil life. These soil organisms are very important and cannot be overlooked in our operations. The best part is that they work for room and board. I simply need to provide them with food, water and shelter. Why do we want soil organisms anyway? There are millions of benefits to the environment that these soil critters perform. Here are just a few examples. There

are bacteria that work together with our plants to fix nitrogen; a symbiotic relationship with the bacteria and the legume plant. The air we breathe is 78 per cent nitrogen, why would you ever buy any? It’s free! Our soil life can also recycle our manure and dead plant material, making the nutrients more available to the plants again. Some soil organisms help keep the plants healthy by controlling disease and parasites. If we are always killing off the “bad bugs,” what do you think happens to the “good bugs”? I’ve heard many experts talk about how nutrients can bind up in the soil and how that is a bad thing. I disagree as I see this as a positive step to building the soil. It’s true that the nutrients in the soil are tied up and not available to the plants; however, if you have a healthy soil life, these nutrients can be released when needed by the soil organisms. The plants need the soil critters and vice versa. Do you know that our soil organisms can give us a higher effective rainfall? As these employees eat the organic matter they leave humus, which in turn increases the waterholding capacity of the soil. This is a huge benefit for our pastures. A healthy soil life can also buffer the soil pH. Did you know that anything that comes out of the back end of an earthworm is pH neutral? These are only a few of the millions of interactions that occur on a daily basis in our pastures. We need the soil life to have healthy profitable pastures. Let’s see what we need to do to keep our employees happy. What are the desired working conditions favourable for our soil life? First, they need food. I need to provide organic matter for them to eat in the form of manure, plant material and old root matter. The job of my dung beetles is to eat poo and die! That’s a pretty simple job description. And you think you have a crappy job! They also require water. If the soil is allowed to dry out due to evaporation, the conditions are no longer desirable for my employees. This means that on our pastures we need to leave enough residue in order to keep the ground covered to hold on to our moisture. Leave more residue!

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

grazing

As for shelter, that is what the thatch layer is. Thatch on a pasture is like the skin on our bodies. It protects all of the biological systems beneath it. Build up your thatch layer and avoid disturbing it whenever possible. Bugs don’t like tillage! The goal of our soil life is to reproduce. The more soil life we have, the more employees we have so let them reproduce. We need to keep conditions favourable to maintain a prolific soil life. A win-win for all of us. It’s easy to just say “keep the conditions favourable” but what is favourable? Maybe it’s easier to explain what is not favourable. They don’t like chemicals, plain and simple. Insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides are all detrimental to our soil life. If you need to wear protective gear when you handle these products, what chance does a one-celled bacteria or a dung beetle have at survival? Avoid using chemicals whenever possible. There are ways to manage our land and animals in order to avoid using these products that is so much easier on our soil life. I also have a few natural remedies that might help you transition into a healthier production system if you care to contact me. Just stopping cold turkey might have you headed into a wreck. They don’t like tillage. Tillage turns their life upside down and destroys their shelter. That protective thatch layer is destroyed and allows more soil moisture to evaporate. The last thing I want to do to my pastures is to rip them up. I work hard at building thatch, not destroying it. Please keep a roof over their heads. Yes, tillage will make the nutrients “bound up in the soil” release and become available, but at the cost of depleting your soil faster. This is only a short-term gain that degrades your soil in the long term. They don’t like low organic matter soils. If there is no food to eat, they cannot survive to reproduce. We need to feed our soils critters as much as we feed our livestock. Some producers have issues with “wasted grass” left out in the pasture. I say “waste it” because this is simply a wage paid to your soil life employees. Feed your soil! Leave as much residue as you can cash flow. Not only is this food for them but it is also gives us the ability to hold onto soil moisture. The more residue, the less loss we have due to run off and evaporation. Residue is one of the most important aspects of my grazing management. They don’t like weak root systems.

There are millions of symbiotic relationships under the soil. In many cases, the plants and organisms work together to provide different nutrients to each other. For example, the plant might exchange a molecule of sugar to a bacteria in return for a molecule of protein. The problem begins when the plants are overgrazed and are too weak to spare anything to the soil life. Onesided relationships just don’t last. We need to keep our plants strong and healthy by not overgrazing. They don’t like increases in pH. Did you know that the fertilizers we add to our soil can alter the pH? When the granule of nitrogen we add to our soil meets up with water, a reaction occurs that releases an H+ ion into the soil. More H+ ions means higher pH. Each bacteria present in our soil has a certain range of pH desirable for living conditions. It is detrimental to them to change your pH too much. Did you also know that when a bacteria and a legume team up to pull nitrogen from the air, the pH does not change? Yes, I know we are all scared to death of legumes but I believe there are

more economic losses in agriculture today from the fear of bloat, than we would ever get from bloat. Learn how to manage legumes. It’s all free nitrogen. I am not saying that you need to totally change all of your management at once, nor am I saying that any of these detrimental practices I have described will totally eradicate your soil life populations. What I am saying is that by using a number of these practices over and over, you will definitely lower your soil life populations. Our advantage is that they repopulate very quickly. Build it and they will come. All I ask is that the next time you make a production practice decision on your operation, just make sure you think about your underground employees and how it might affect them. They are far more valuable to you than you might think. Best wishes and God Bless! c Steve Kenyon runs Greener Pastures Ranching Ltd. in Busby, Alta., www. greenerpasturesranching.com, 780-307-6500, email skenyon@greenerpasturesranching.com or find them on Facebook.

“When my pen riders pull cattle, I want them to have a fast acting treatment that’s cost-effective.”

It just makes sense to treat cattle for BRD with the new generation macrolide, that is fast acting,1 long lasting2 and has a price that won’t break the bank. (And it’s plastic, so you won’t break the bottle either.) ®

Treat them with ZACTRAN .

Ask your veterinarian why ZACTRAN is ideal for cattle in your feedlot.

1. Giguère S, Huang R, Malinski TJ, Dorr PM, Tessman RK & Somerville BA. Disposition of gamithromycin in plasma, pulmonary epithelial lining fluid, bronchoalveolar cells, and lung tissue in cattle. Am. J. Vet. Res. 72(3): 326-330 (2011). 2. Based on label claims. ZACTRAN ® is a registered trademark of Merial Limited. © 2014 Merial Canada Inc. All rights reserved. ZACT-13-7558-JAD-E

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4 3515 Zactran Therapeutics-CndCttl.indd 1

Client: Merial Project: Zactran Therapeutics Ad Date: Jan 2014

2013-12-13 8:20 AM

Publication: Canadian Cattlemen Size: 4.58” x 5” Bleed: none

Agency: ON Communication Inc Agency Contact: Raellen Seaman Telephone: 519-434-1365 Ext.228

 breeding

By Peg Strankman

rethinking the public perception of genomics “

eople’s relationship with food has changed. We now want to know where it came from and how it was raised and grown,” says David Bailey, president and CEO of Genome Alberta, as part of his introductory remarks during a workshop in Calgary this spring to discuss the public side of using genomics to improve cattle herds. “Genome technology can increase efficiency in food production to help address the need to feed the projected increase in world population. However, there are societal implications to this technology. People are asking about the ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social (GE3LS) implications of using this technology.” “While advances in livestock genomics are directed to addressing societal challenges such as lack of sufficient nutrition or nutritional quality, people worry about unintended consequences. Understanding the why and what of people’s anxiety about what might be done to their food supply is critical as researchers continue to work with this technology,” says Bailey. Leading the panel on the social and legal implications in the Calgary workshop, Dr. Ed Pajor, professor of animal welfare at the University of Calgary’s faculty of veterinary medicine, reminded the group that we are working in an area of public trust. “Trust is hugely important.” Referencing the Centre for Food Integrity, Pajor talked about consumer trust supporting social license. An important factor in building that trust is the perception that there are shared values. That is being viewed as three to five times more important than skills, science or demonstrations of technical competence. People see what is possible through science and wonder if the biological limits are being pushed too far. They tend to be more accepting of a technology viewed as being for the public good than only simply geared to enhancing economically important traits. Karine Morin, director of Genome Canada’s GE3LS program, reinforced that point. “The nature of the stakeholder is important. Some function in the public good and some for private good. These two groups interact geographically where building

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

Genome Alberta CEO David Bailey says people’s relationship with food has changed.

trust happens primarily in person so there must be an investment in meeting face to face.” Morin spoke of the need to frame issues differently for different groups and to understand trade-offs. She recommends using targeted communication to diverse interest groups as an important strategy for cultivating this public trust in a new technology. Jackie Wepruk, general manager of the National Farm Animal Care Council, noted, “Stakeholders identify the need to work with science-based decisions but disagree on the validity of the science.” As Pajor explains it, “Often people view genome technology through a pet filter. The closest relationship to animals many people have is with their pets.” Many of the speakers and audience participants came back time and time again to the language used in the genomics discussion. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are different from the genetic selec-

tion technology used in the livestock sector. Genomics is similar to traditional breeding but uses specific biomarkers to identify animals that are superior for traits such as growth rate, feed conversion, meat quality, milk quality, lactation, wool growth and disease resistance. Dr. Ubaka Ogbogu, with the faculty of law and pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Alberta, says it is important to understand what the public really knows to avoid confusion between terms such as GMO and genomics. A consumer’s perception changes with the use of different language. “Generally people don’t like genetic modification of animals,” noted Dr. Alison Van Eenennaaman, co-operative extension specialist, genomics and biotechnology at UC Davis. Her presentation explored the cost-benefit considerations of livestock genomics — looking at who pays and who benefits. She also encourages people to be very specific about the type of biotechnol-

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

breeding

ogy being used in animal agriculture. For example, production biotechnology, such as ionophores, beta-agonists, antibiotics and vaccines have different costs and benefits than technologies such as cloning, genomic selection, embryo transfer and estrus synchronization. “There is little organized activist opposition to conventional animal breeding,” says Eenennaaman. “Some of that work has dramatically modified livestock, for example, Belgian Blue and broiler chickens.” However, the public has strong negative attitudes toward specific animal biotechnologies. For example, growth enhancement of Atlantic salmon using a growth hormone gene injection into salmon eggs has been in the regulatory review process in the U.S. since 1995. The company that developed this technology, AquaBounty, has a total R&D investment of more than $60 million to date. “Other companies using genetically engineered animal technology are moving to countries with more predictable policy environments.” “Genetic selection may attract less public opposition because it uses naturally occurring genetic variation; however, some applications may be seen as contrary to animal welfare. These may include approaches to shortening the generation interval, such as the harvest of oocytes from calves that are still in utero.” On the benefit side of the ledger for genomics, Henry Janzen, a research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) addressed the environmental implications for livestock genomics. “We can’t have everything on the landscape so we need to look for trade-offs. With the many stresses there are on our landscapes and ecosystems, how might we fine tune livestock for the future.” Dr. John Basarab, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development senior beef research scientist, noted there is considerable opportunity to find efficiencies in feeding livestock and reducing methane emissions. Dr. Ellen Goodard, of the department of resource economics and environmental sociology at the University of Alberta, talked about the need to recognize that economics is broader than dollars and cents. It’s also about behaviour. “Individuals make decisions and they make different decisions in different parts of their lives,” said Goodard. It’s important to remember various factors influence the public’s behaviour. People want to know that they have the opportunity for input www.canadiancattlemen.ca

into scientific decisions that they feel may have an impact on them. Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein, an AAFC research scientist in beef cattle welfare in Lethbridge, identified potential genomic benefits such as using marker-assisted selection to find disease-resistant phenotypes, or animals better able to deal with heat stress and thus better cope with possible changes in the environment. Dr. Joe Stookey, a professor of animal

behaviour at the University of Saskatchewan asks, “Can we change the use of painful procedures, such as dehorning by genetically selecting for polled animals? We can perhaps identify a genetic component in negative production traits such as tail biting in pigs and better balance the health and welfare of the animal.” The Calgary workshop was sponsored by Genome Alberta and the Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency. c

Questions about the weather?

Ask More stations, more data, more forecast tools for farmers All the weather tools you’ll need:  Over

1,100 reporting stations weather feature  Radar & satellite images  Historical data  Provincial maps  Photo community  Analyze

For further information on WeatherFarm please call 1-855-999-8858 or visit: www.weatherfarm.com C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

 vet aDv i c e

Long Winters: A Tipping Point In Calf Health

his year’s winter will go into the record books as one of the longest and coldest. The Accumulated Winter Season Severity Index based on daily temperatures, snowfall, and snow depths show the season’s severity exceeded cumulative totals for the last 50 years in many areas of Western Canada. The harsh winter took its toll on livestock. Feed supplies reached critically low levels on many farms and ranches. Most significantly, lingering cold and borderline energy and protein intake by brood cows through the last trimester of pregnancy precipitated a significant weight loss by cows through a critical time of fetal development. The result of cold and weak calves produced one of the worst calving seasons experienced by many livestock producers. Weight loss by brood cows since the new year was insidious and caught many off guard. Body condition scoring of pregnant animals 90 days before calving would have signalled the weight loss and could have provided time for fortifying rations with additional protein and energy. Calf health suffers when moms are losing condition. The inherent disease-fighting ability of an immune system primed by high-quality colostrum is compromised. Cold and wet calving grounds on top of a handicapped immune system establishes an ideal environment for disease-causing organisms to multiply. Scours and a variety of other intestinal conditions, respiratory disease, and navel infections can decimate a calf crop. Last week, I was talking to a Cochrane-area rancher over coffee. Through the lament and stress of his worst calving season ever was the regret he expressed over losing 20 of his best calves from what had tentatively been diagnosed as enterotoxemia. The cause: Clostridium perfringens. The precise “type” amongst the four or five associated with the bacteria had not yet been determined. Calves were either found dead, or appeared slightly depressed one day and died within 24 hours despite treatment with antibiotics. In 2008, an article published in scientific literature raised the question about Clostridium perfringens Type A’s emergence as a serious problem in calves. At the time it had been identified as an agent associated with severe inflammation of the abomasum (true, or fourth stomach of cattle) with fatality rates of five to 50 per cent. In describing the disease, veterinarians discovered as many questions as there were answers. In cases of abomasal inflammation caused by C. perfringens Type A, gas accumulates rapidly. Clinical signs often include rapid progressive bloat and shock, colic, excessive salivation. Not infrequently, calves are found dead and bloat is assumed to be something that occurs in most ruminants after death. Animals that appear normal in the morning can be found dead by evening. Enterotoxemia typically occurs in calves less than two weeks of age. In beef herds, it is not uncommon to see calves up to six weeks old affected. Clostridium perfringens are spore-forming bacteria commonly found in many environments, including soil, water, feed, contaminated colostrum or milk, calving areas, and the normal bovine intestinal tract. They are divided into “types” based on the toxin they produce. A number of C. perfringens types affect

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

calves. Sudden deaths and a range of gut problems are characteristic of them all. Type C is one of the more commonly encountered types of C. perfringens. It is especially virulent in calves less than 10 days old. Enterotoxemia due to C. perfringens Type C may result in severe bloody diarrhea, although calves often die before diarrhea develops. In small numbers, C. perfringens bacteria are generally harmless in the intestine, but under the right conditions they grow and proliferate. As C. perfringens proliferates in the gut, toxins are produced that damage the gut lining locally and enter the bloodstream to cause inflammation, shock, and cardiac arrest. Because of the widespread nature of the organism, calves are readily exposed to C. perfringens in the environment. Damp calving grounds pockmarked with contaminated run-off promote the multiplication and ingestion of bacteria. Among factors that contribute to rapid proliferation of ingested bacteria are abrupt changes in feeding patterns, physical or environmental stress, nutritional deficiencies, and conditions that impair movement of the intestine (such as diarrhea due to other causes). C. perfringens is not spread from calf to calf, but it is not uncommon for groups to be affected at the same time. Diagnosis of C. perfringens can be difficult. It should be one of the conditions ruled out when young calves die suddenly. Tissue samples from calves suspected of having clostridial enterotoxemia need to be collected soon after death and kept well preserved. Cases of C. perfringens Types C and E, will sometimes reveal severe tissue damage and hemorrhage in the small intestine. Calves affected with Type A will often show inflammation, ulceration, and hemorrhage of the lining of the rumen and abomasum. Because C. perfringens is often found in the intestine of normal calves, culture results need to be considered along with clinical signs, lesions observed at necropsy, and, in some cases, toxin identification, to reach an accurate diagnosis. Because clinical signs are usually a result of the toxin, not the bacteria itself, treatment of C. perfringens is usually unsuccessful. Prevention of enterotoxemia due to C. perfringens in beef herds requires attention to two main areas: minimizing exposure to bacteria, and enhancing immunity in the young calf. Producers concerned about enterotoxemia should consult their veterinarian. Careful attention must be paid to sanitation of calving areas, which may include moving groups that calve on range onto new ground. Ensuring cows are properly vaccinated is of utmost importance in the resistance of calves to C. perfringens enterotoxemia. Antibodies in colostrum consumed by the newborn become the primary barrier of defence. National Weather Service meteorologists showed the winter of 2014 was one of the most miserable on record. C. perfringens added to the misery index for a number of ranchers. 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).

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

www.farm-king.com

Cut it, Ted it, Rake it, Move it.

Sickle Bar Mower

Disc Mower

Tedder

Easy Rake

Easy Rake Superstar

Bat Rake

Round Bale Carrier Model 1450

Round Bale Carrier Model 2450

Square Bale Carrier Model 4480

Getting your hay from the field to the yard has never been easier. Farm King offers a full line of hay tools designed to increase productivity of your operation and maintain the nutrient value of your crops. From first cut to the last move, Farm King meets your haying needs.

Visit www.farm-king.com to find a dealer near you.

ÂŠ2014 Buhler Trading Inc. | info@buhler.com | www.farm-king.com

 GRAZING

By Duane McCartney

FREE RANGE, GRASS-FED BEEF, BORN AND GRAZED IN HAWAII

here is more to Hawaii than bikinis and surfing! There is a bigscale ranching industry, especially on Maui. The 29,000-acre Haleakala Ranch situated in Maui at the base of the Haleakala Mountain (Maui’s tallest) has kept the same core values of family and community that it had when H. P. Baldwin incorporated the ranch back in 1888. Recently the over 100 Baldwin descendants who still own the ranch gathered to celebrate its 125th anniversary. They are still raising cattle and just came through several years of drought, and are still striving to be careful stewards of the land. Travelling from the sea coast towards the middle of Maui, we pass mile after mile of sugar cane, the main agriculture crop grown on the island. The huge Dole pineapple fields are long gone to Costa Rica, the Philippines and Indonesia due to high water, land and labour costs. We pass all sorts of bicyclers coasting down the road, part of the sunrise bike tour coming down from the mountain top several thousand feet above us. The winding road soon arrives at the wide-open grass pastures of the Haleakala Ranch.

C AT T L E M E N · J U N E 2 0 1 4

Livestock manager Greg Friel explains “The Haleakala Ranch encompasses several microclimates and terrains including highaltitude pine and native forest, temperate pasture land, subtropical rain forest and dry or desert-type rangeland on the leeward coastal side of the ranch. The ranch remains as one of the largest ranches in Hawaii.” “I’m not sure what grasses were seeded when, but all of the pasture grasses were introduced to Hawaii. The only two mammals that are native to Hawaii are the bat and the seal. All of the native grasses evolved without grazing pressure but when the British explorers released goats, sheep, cattle and horses, the unmanaged animals grazed out the native forages into isolated pockets. I think that the initial forages that were imported were brought in from Africa and Australia. Some of the lower elevation forages are Green Panic, Buffel, Pangola, Guinea grass, Glycine and Desmodium legumes, and Leucaena, a shrub legume. Above 2,000 feet you have Kikuyu, Yorkshire fog, Bermuda, Rhodes Grass Trefoil, Plantain and various clovers.” “Our rainy season runs from Novem-

ber through May. Below 2,000 feet elevation, it is warm enough that we get grass growth whenever we have moisture. Our herd in the lower country starts calving right around Christmas and their calving period is 60 days. Our herd on the mountain runs from 2,500 up to 6,500 feet and in this country, the grass doesn’t start growing until mid-April at 2,500 and about a week later for every 1,000 feet rise in elevation.” Except for the last three years of this past drought, the ranch has been finishing and marketing all its animals on Maui. In 2011 and 2012, the fourth and fifth year of the drought, they had to sell their stockers to mainland buyers in order to move the cow herds up into the stocker country where there was available grazing. “We have been Red and Black Angus since 1996 and I have dropped the Black Angus in the past couple of years. We have had some problems during the spring with some of the Black Angus not shedding their winter hair, which gave them problems going into summer. The Red Angus genetics that I used doesn’t have this problem. We

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

GRAZING

AI all of the replacement heifers, and during 2013 we started to AI about 25 per cent of the heifers to a Tuli bull,” Friel adds. The ranch has been able to reduce its dependency on herbicides for weed control on the grazing lands with multispecies grazing management. Goats and sheep grazing alongside the cows take out invasive species not utilized by the cows. They figure five to six goats basically equals one grazing animal. Over the years the Haleakala ranch has played a key land management and conservation role on Maui. Isolated island ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to damage by invasive plants and feral goats, pigs and deer. The ranch has developed a comprehensive invasive species management plan and conservation initiatives involving watershed management, game fencing, rare plant protection, riparian corridor restoration and native bird propagation facilities. Other income streams are generated by eco-tourism activities such as zip lining, hiking, horseback riding and a lavender farm. “We have been selecting for moderately framed cows for about six to eight years,” says Friel. “We aren’t where we want to be quite yet. Our steers are finished at 1,050 to 1,100 pounds and our heifers at 950 to 1,000. Their entire diet is grass and legumes with a mineral supplement, and we market all our cattle as grass-fed to various stores and restaurants on Maui.” Elli Funakoshi is with Maui Cattle Com-

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

pany that markets grass-finished beef from four island ranches, Hana, Haleakala, Ulupalakua and Kaupo. Its brand reads: Maui Cattle Company Free Range 100% GrassFed Beef, Born and Grazed in Hawaii. “We sell our chilled beef in retail stores such as all the Long grocery stores on Maui,’ he says. “Our biggest seller is our ground beef but our steaks sell as well. We stopped processing grain-fed cattle in 2011 and went to 100 per cent grass fed since.” Most of their beef is sold to retailers and restaurants on Maui but they do supply a few restaurants on Oahu. “Previously, 75 per cent of Maui’s cattle were shipped to the U.S. mainland, while islanders consumed U.S. beef imported from the mainland. We realized this made no sense and the Maui Cattle Company was created with the knowledge that the distance between plate and pasture needed to be shortened, and locally grown products are vital to our island economy. Our goal is to keep Maui’s livestock on the island, establish a sustainable ranching industry and deliver premium products locally.” The Hawaiian cattle industry has come a long way since Captain George Vancouver gave four black Longhorn cows as a gift to King Kamehameha I back in 1793. Two bulls didn’t make the difficult trip and the next year Captain Vancouver brought the king a second gift of seven cows, one mature bull and two bull calves.

Vancouver convinced the king to put a “kapu” or taboo on killing the cattle so that the cattle would provide a future food supply for his people who had been ravaged by war for many years. The Longhorns took to the Hawaiian climate and by the mid-1800s the several cows and three bulls grew into a wild herd of 35,000 to 40,000 cattle that trampled crops, endangered people and severely overgrazed island grasslands. Eventually the cattle had to be rounded up and Spanish-Mexican cowboys or vaqueros were brought from California to teach the Hawaiian’s how to rope and ride. The Hawaiian cowboys were called Paniolos as this was the closest to the Spanish word in the Hawaiian language. By the late 1800s and early 1900s the Hawaiian cattle industry was flourishing. When it came time to market the cattle, the Paniolas drove the stock down to the harbour, lassoed and dragged them out into the surf, and tied them by their long horns to the side of the long boats. The sailors then rowed the boats towing the cattle out to the awaiting ships where they were hoisted aboard using belly slings and block and tackle. The Hawaiian cattle industry has certainly come a long way since those times. c Duane McCartney is a retired forage beef systems research scientist from Lacombe, Alta.

C AT T L E M E N · J U N E 2 0 1 4

 researc h o n t h e r eco r d

By Reynold Bergen

Antimicrobial resistance: global report on surveillance

he World Health Organization’s “Antimicrobial resistance: global report on surveillance” was released this spring. The WHO’s report was quite comprehensive and well balanced, compared to much of the media attention that regularly swirls around this issue. Antimicrobial use leads to increased antimicrobial resistance in bacteria. The misuse or overuse of antimicrobials in human or animal medicine increases the speed with which antimicrobial resistance develops. An added concern is that pharmaceutical companies have not released any new antibacterial drugs since 1987. If antimicrobial resistance continues to increase, the drugs we rely on now will not work as well, and we may have few effective alternatives to turn to. Infectious diseases that are relatively easily treated by antimicrobials today could return to being major threats to human health. Antimicrobials are sorted into four categories according to their importance in human medicine. Antimicrobials categorized as Low Importance (e.g. ionophores like Rumensin, Bovatec, Posistac) are not medically important because they are not used in human medicine. Antimicrobials categorized as Medium Importance (e.g. Nuflor, Resflor, Liquamycin), High Importance (e.g. Draxxin, Zactran, Zuprevo, Tilmovet, Pulmotil, Micotil, Tylan, Trivetrin) or Very High Importance (e.g. Baytril, A180, Excenel, Excede) are medically important because they are closely related to antimicrobials that are used in human medicine. Antimicrobials of Very High Importance are often “drugs of last resort.” If infections do not respond to treatment with these antimicrobials, there is nothing more powerful to turn to. Resistance to antimicrobials of Very High Importance has very serious consequences in both human and veterinary medicine. The WHO reviewed surveillance information about resistance to High and Very High Importance antimicrobials among human patients in Africa, the Americas, Europe, the Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, and the Western Pacific. They concluded “resistance to common bacteria has reached alarming levels in many parts of the world indicating that many of the available treatment options for common infections in some settings are becoming ineffective.” The WHO report also mentioned antimicrobial use in livestock, stating, “in many countries, the total amount of antibiotics used in animals (both food-producing and companion animals), measured as gross weight, exceeds the quantity used in the treatment of disease in humans.” The WHO suggested this statistic may be misleading because livestock are more numerous and often larger than humans. Unfortunately, the report did not explain that the four categories of antimicrobials are used differently in human and animal medicine. The Public Health Agency of Canada reports that the High and Very High Importance categories account for over 80 per cent of the antimicrobials sold for human use, but fewer than 20 per cent of the antimicrobials sold for use in livestock and companion animals. Use of the High and Very High Importance categories in beef cattle is even lower. Research funded by the Beef Cattle Research Council and Alberta Beef Producers showed that less than 1.0 per cent of the antimicrobial doses used in Canadian feedlot cattle belong to the

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

High and Very High Importance categories. Over 90 per cent of the antimicrobial doses used in Canadian feedlot cattle are ionophores, which are never used in human medicine. The WHO report mentions that the Canadian, U.S. and several European governments monitor antimicrobial resistance in livestock and meat, but didn’t include the results of these surveillance programs. If they had, it would have shown that resistance to antimicrobials of Very High Importance is below one per cent in E. coli from Canadian cattle and beef, below one per cent in U.S. beef, and two per cent or lower in Danish cattle and beef. It is highly doubtful that cattle production practices in these countries contribute to antimicrobial resistance in human medicine.

Resistance to antimicrobials of Very High Importance (in humans) is below one per cent in E. coli from Canadian cattle and beef

The Beef Research Cluster is funding a project led by Tim McAllister of AAFC Lethbridge, with collaborators from Alberta Agriculture, the University of Calgary, Feedlot Health Management Services, the University of Guelph and the Public Health Agency of Canada. This team will look at the antimicrobials used in commercial feedlots and the level of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria found in feedlot cattle. They will also monitor antimicrobial resistance in manure, soil, and water downstream from feedlots as well as retail beef, and do very detailed genetic analyses of the antimicrobial resistance genes they find. By collaborating with Dr. Ron Read of the Calgary Health Region, they will determine whether the antimicrobial resistance genes found in bacteria from the feedlot environment are exactly the same as those found in sick people. This will determine whether, or how often, antimicrobial resistance genes found in cattle and humans originate from the same source. The public, media and regulators are giving more and more attention to antimicrobial resistance. In many cases the emotion and perception outweighs the facts. This Cluster-funded research will contribute to factual, scientifically sound and effective industry communication and policy on this issue. The Beef Research Cluster is funded by the National Checkoff and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada with additional contributions from provincial beef industry groups and governments 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 Dr. Reynold Bergen is science director of the Beef Cattle Research Council.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

calgaryBullSale_CC_0520.indd 1

22/05/14 9:49 PM

 Holistic R a nc hi ng

By Don Campbell

SUPPLYING CONSUMER DEMAND

e are all aware that beef prices in all segments of the industry are at an alltime high. This is most welcome but it might also be a great time for our industry to examine what is happening and why. It is easier for an individual business and an industry to adjust in good times. The question now is how do we position ourselves for a profitable future? Most of the information in this article is from Bill Helming, a U.S. ag economist, agribusiness consultant and author who has put out a report entitled Bill Helming’s Wakeup Call. In it he presents some ideas that are disturbing. For example, he says most of today’s better beef prices are a direct result of our reduced cow herd. Meanwhile consumer demand for beef in the form of consumption has declined dramatically and continues to decline. This is not good news if we wish to maintain a large, viable and profitable industry. Bill uses U.S. numbers but I am sure the same trends apply in Canada. In the U.S. there has been a 40 per cent decline in per capita consumption of beef since 1976 and a 99 per cent increase in per capita consumption of chicken over the same 38-year period. Most of the reduction in beef consumption is related to price. To maintain a healthy industry we must learn to produce beef at a lower cost. The U.S. beef industry has lost 44 per cent of its market share to chicken and turkey over this span. There are some bright spots, however. In 1970 ground beef accounted for 42 per cent of beef consumption. In 2013 it accounted for 57 per cent of beef consumption. The demand for ground beef has increased 36 per cent in the last 38 years. This trend is continuing and it is something we need to be aware of and something we need to address. I see two basic outcomes to the trends that have been taking place over the last 38 years. One is to ignore the consumers’ demands and continue to produce beef using our current model that will result in fewer and fewer cows and fewer producers. The beef industry will be smaller as it will produce a luxury item for the more affluent consumers. This does not appear to me to be a wise choice. The second is to recognize and respond to the consumer demand. This model would result in some fundamental changes to our industry but it should also give us a growing industry producing a healthy, afford-

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

able product for a large number of consumers. This appears to me to be a much better choice. Bill suggests that the opportunity for our industry is to make beef more affordable as we move ahead. Please don’t quit reading at this point. Making beef more affordable implies making change to our industry but it does not imply making our businesses less profitable. In fact making change and following consumer demand has the potential to result in more profit.

aking beef more affordable M implies making changes to our industry but it does not imply making our business less profitable Changes we might consider

1. Continue to produce high-quality grain finished beef. 2. Develop a parallel system that focuses on producing economical, healthy ground beef. 3. Aim for a lower cost of production at all stages of the industry. 4. Raise smaller-framed, lighter-weight cattle. 5. More cattle with a frame score of three to five. 6. Breed for grass genetics. 7. Use less grain in the rations. 8. Use more forages. 9. Slaughter cattle at an older age. It was common years ago to slaughter cattle at three to five years of age. Perhaps we should be selling 2-1/2-year-old steers instead of long yearlings. I am not sure how changes like these might occur. But it appears change may be necessary to ensure we have a strong, viable industry as we move ahead. Change requires leadership. This might be a great place for the CCA and our provincial cattle associations to step in and help map out a viable, profitable industry for our future. What is your opinion? c Don Campbell ranches with his family at Meadow Lake, Sask., and teaches Holistic Management courses. He can be reached at 306-236-6088 or doncampbell@sasktel.net.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

PRESENTED BY

Managing your farm made easy Spray Field SW2 Due March 6, 2014

✔

Spray Field SW2 100% Complete Assigned to John Done March 3, 2014 Used 2,000 L Insecticide Used Sprayer for 2 hrs

Spray Field SW2 50% Complete Assigned to John Due March 6, 2014

Plan

Assign

Track

Easily schedule jobs and activities, share across your operation.

Let your team know what, where and when jobs are scheduled.

Manage your farm in detail, from your desktop or smartphone.

FarmDock is an easy to use mobile app that allows you to plan, assign and track activities on your farm. It's simple to set up, simple to use and can be quickly customized to fit your operation. Built with input from real farmers, FarmDock tracks and reports key information across one farm operation or several. Smartphone and desktop versions allow sharing of information with everyone, on the go. Reports and reviews of activity are available in real time.

Spray Field SW2 0% Complete, Assigned to Joe Due Sept 26 , 2014

It's your farm at a glance, or a task in detail. FarmDock keeps information organized, accessible and ready for reporting. You're in charge, customize it to fit your way of doing things.

Ready for more? Start tracking your farm operation in one minute with our FREE 6 MONTH FARMDOCK TRIAL! Visit farmdock.com for more details, or scan the code to download the app.

Transfer Barley to Bin 2 0% Complete Assigned to John Due Sept 26 , 2014

✔

Fertilize Field SE3

✔

Service Sprayer 3432

100% Complete, Assigned to Frank Done Sept 26 , 2014

100% Complete, Assigned to David Done Sept 25, 2014

Ag tools from Available for iPhone and Android Mobile Phones.

 disease

By Heather Smith Thomas

Hunting for Johne’s Disease in Saskatchewan “We recommend that purebred herds be tested, even though we can’t certify a herd as being free of this disease.” Wendy Wilkins, DVM Saskatchewan Agriculture

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

ohne’s is a sneaky disease you won’t notice until it is already well established in a herd but a group in Saskatchewan Agriculture is attempting to bring it out into the open. The catch is they can’t do it alone. They need help. Wendy Wilkins, DVM, PhD, with Saskatchewan Agriculture, says the Provincial Johne’s Screening and Control Program is open to all purebred beef producers in Saskatchewan. “We are targeting purebred breeders because Johne’s is primarily spread from herd to herd by the introduction of infected animals, ” she says. “I talked recently with some producers and this is how they believe they got Johne’s in their herds — by buying a new bull. If you want to make sure that you are not bringing Johne’s into your herd, make sure you are buying bulls from a known source,” says Wilkins. Purebred breeders who are testing for Johne’s would be a safer source than breeders who don’t. This is a difficult disease to detect since the symptoms — weight loss in spite of good appetite, and diarrhea — generally don’t

show up until an animal has been infected for many years, and the tests we currently have don’t pick up the infection right away. “Animals typically get infected as calves, usually before six months of age. The bacteria are essentially dormant in their bodies for years. Testing has caught it in some young animals, but usually it’s the older animals that show positive on tests. We don’t recommend testing any cattle under two years of age, since they won’t show positive that young, even if they are infected,” she explains. “The older they are, the more likely they will test positive if they do have the disease. We recommend that purebred herds be tested, even though we can’t certify a herd as being free of this disease. That doesn’t mean producers can’t take steps to make sure they don’t have Johne’s in their own herd and do their utmost to keep it out of their herd,” says Wilkins. “Under the current program we do a blood test on all animals in the herd that are over two years of age. The tests are not perfect, but may pick it up in some of the

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

disease

older animals. Another way to test is to do PCR or culture on feces, though these tests are not covered under the provincial Johne’s program. Neither one of those tests is perfect either. The fecal test checks for the actual bacteria, whereas the blood test detects an immune response (if the animal was exposed to the bacteria). A cow can have an immune response and not be shedding bacteria in her feces. Also, a cow can be shedding bacteria and not have an immune response.” It would be ideal if a person could do both tests because that can tell you more than either test alone.“The problem is cost. As a herd test, however, either test will work if you are testing all the animals, because if the whole herd tests negative you can be fairly confident you don’t have the disease. You can’t ever say that a herd is Johne’s free, because the tests aren’t perfect, but if all the tests are negative there is a good chance you don’t have it.” On the other hand, if you get any positive tests in a whole-herd testing, you can be fairly confident that you do have Johne’s. “So, at the herd level, the tests are adequate. For the individual animal, they are not so good, but these are the only tests we have.” When a few cows test positive to blood tests, the next step depends on how many positives. “If there’s only one positive cow in 100 head, we would want to retest that cow, using the fecal test, just to confirm it. If that comes back positive, the producer must make a management decision regarding what to do with that cow. Typically with any cow that is shedding bacteria we recommend getting rid of that cow as soon as possible because she is spreading it to other animals.” “Under the provincial program, we also provide up to $500 for the producer to consult with their veterinarian and do a risk assessment and management plan,” she says. “The producer and veterinarian together should go over the farm management procedures and identify areas that would be risks for spreading Johne’s or introducing Johne’s. The plan is to work on two or three specific areas initially, to reduce those risks.” You wouldn’t want any shedding cows on your calving grounds, or upstream from the rest of the herd. Animals are usually infected young, picking up bacteria via fecal ingestion from contaminated feed and water or suckling dirty teats. “Don’t be calving in a pen where you’ve had sick animals, or even on the winter feeding ground where there’s buildup of manure. This all applies to disease prevention, in general, and especially Johne’s,” adds Wilkins. www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Finding the disease is only the first step, getting rid of it is the hard part. “We’re looking at five to 10 years of commitment to accomplish this,” she says. “Customers want to have confidence in their seedstock supplier. If the purebred breeder is seen to be proactive in preventing Johne’s, buyers will have more confidence.” It’s tempting to avoid the issue altogether but Wilkins says that’s the worst way to deal with it. If it’s there and they don’t do anything about it, this disease will only infect more and more animals in the herd. “This is something the industry has struggled with for years — the resistance by producers in general to acknowledge and deal with this disease. It’s often below the radar. Stockmen may see reduced production but not realize they have Johne’s until an animal gets sick and dies. Then the rationale is often, ‘It’s only one cow, and I can deal with that.’ By that time, however, it’s spread through the herd. It is easier to become concerned about something that is very obvious, and Johne’s is not very obvious,” says Wilkins. The anxiety is even greater for purebred breeders who may fear the mere mention of Johne’s will scare off customers. For many years, beef producers thought Johne’s was a dairy cattle disease. “For a while this may have been true. But over the years, dairy steers or cull cows have wound up in beef production. This isn’t such a common practice anymore, but it is one of the ways Johne’s could have entered some beef herds.” “Johne’s is still at low levels in beef herds, compared to dairy cattle. The most recent studies show that it occurs in about one to maybe eight per cent of beef herds, depending on the region. This is fairly low incidence, but if it is not controlled it will only grow,” says Wilkins. The Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association (SSGA) administers the provincial screening control program. For more information call 306-757-8523. To those living in other provinces Wilkins suggests they contact their own cattlemen’s association or provincial agriculture department. “There have been some changes over the past year, with the rollout of Growing Forward Two funding,” she says. Many of the previous Johne’s programs were done with Growing Forward One money, and those programs expired with the expiration of Growing Forward One. “As always, their own veterinarian is their best resource for disease control, including Johne’s.” c

 r es ea rc h

Expect decreased production Dr. Steve Hendrick of the Western College of Veterinary Medicine says the massive U.S. National Johne’s Disease Demonstration Herd Project has shown how devastating Johne’s can be to a herd. There was a considerable loss in adjusted weaning weight in calves coming from dams that were positive for Johne’s,” he says. Data for the 205-day weaning weight came from fecal cultures on 2,103 cow/calf pairs and ELISA results on 3,482 cow/calf pairs. Calves from dams that tested positive on culture tests had significantly lower weaning weights (57.9 pounds less, on average — or about 69.2 pounds lighter when adjusted for cow age, etc.) than calves from uninfected dams. Calves from dams that tested positive on ELISA serum tests were 7.6 pounds (or about 11.42 pounds, when adjusted for cow age, etc.) lighter than calves from uninfected dams. The lower weaning weight might be partly due to the calves becoming infected at a young age, but also the lower milk production from the infected dams, he says. “Usually we think of the ELISA blood test as a way to pick up positive cows that are not as advanced yet in disease progression so this is probably why their calves were not affected quite as much as those from dams identified positive with fecal cultures,” he says. “If it’s a herd that only has one infected cow out of 500 or one out of 200, it may not be significant to lose 50 or 60 pounds on one calf. But as the disease spreads through a herd it becomes more significant.” “This study is the first time in North America we’ve ever had a look at how Johne’s might affect production in beef cattle,” says Hendrick.

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

 CCA repo rts

By Dave Solverson

interesting times

ay has been a productive month with calving having slowed down and the weather improving just enough for seeding to occur and pastures to green up. The cold and wet spring weather in most parts of the country has meant extra time to tend to calves to ensure they get a good start. It will be an interesting summer and fall to say the least, with the outlook calling for tight supplies to remain in Canada and the U.S. and in turn a continuation of the favourable market conditions that have resulted in the current environment of high prices. While there is some concern that consumers may start to feel sticker shock at the retail beef counter and turn to other, cheaper proteins I am confident that the experience of tossing a high-quality Canadian beef burger or steak on the barbecue is simply too much of a summer tradition to do without. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) also had a busy month with activity in a number of important files. On May 19, the en banc oral hearing on U.S. mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL) was held in Washington, D.C. The CCA was well represented at the hearing and along with its coalition partners is now awaiting a decision from the court. There is no set timeline for when the court will announce its decision on the case law at the centre of the dispute around freespeech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The CCA is involved in this litigation as part of a coalition of meat and livestock organizations in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico that filed a lawsuit on July 8, 2013 seeking to strike down the USDA May 23 revision to the COOL regulation. The WTO compliance panel is expected to make its preliminary confidential report to the parties in late June, followed by its final report, again in confidence to the parties, about a month later. The panel’s report will be made public only after it is translated, likely in September or early October. Of course, that decision is likely to be followed by an appeal. If this process continues fully to its conclusion, Canada could be authorized to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports sometime in 2015. I travelled to Mexico for the Confederacion Nacional de Organizaciones Ganaderas (CNOG) annual convention. I met with CCA’s Mexican and U.S. cattle counterparts and was pleased to introduce them to Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Gerry Ritz. The minister was in Mexico for a trilateral meeting of North American agriculture leaders to discuss NAFTA and also to address cattle industry leaders from Mexico, the U.S. and Canada at the convention. Minister Ritz

C at t l e m e n · j u n e 2 0 1 4

urged Mexican Agriculture Secretary Enrique Martínez to publish a list of items his government will target for retaliation regarding COOL and encouraged CNOG member producers to put some pressure on their government to publish such a list. I told my counterparts how much work the minister does to open markets for Canadian beef and the minister commented on the strong relationship he has with the CCA. CNOG and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association leadership were clearly impressed by the relationship CCA has with the minister. The CCA travelled to the latest Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) ministerial meetings in Singapore held May 19-20. Along with CCA’s partners in the Five Nations Beef Alliance (FNBA) from Australia, New Zealand and the U.S., the CCA urged all participants involved in the TPP negotiations to recommit to securing a comprehensive, non-discriminatory outcome — one which eliminates tariffs on all products and addresses behindthe-border trade barriers. The CCA stands with its FNBA partners in insisting upon full tariff elimination for beef by all TPP countries. These trips all work towards achieving expanded market access for Canada’s beef cattle producers. Under the terms of the Canada-Korea FTA, the 40 per cent Korean tariff on fresh and frozen beef will be fully eliminated in 15 equal annual steps and the 18 per cent tariff on offals will be fully eliminated in 11 equal annual steps. Korea will also provide Canada a toehold in Asia and will add renewed emphasis on negotiations with Japan. In Japan, the CCA’s objective is that Canada negotiate the elimination of both the 38.5 per cent tariff and the safeguard trigger (tariff increases to 50 per cent if imports increase beyond a set formula) in either the TPP or in a bilateral agreement between Canada and Japan. Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the National Conservation Plan (NCP) in May. The CCA looks forward to working with the Government of Canada on the details of the plan and to ensure that working landscapes are part of the NCP. The NCP supports voluntary conservation and restoration practices, making it a good fit with beef cattle production. The CCA continues to refine the five-year strategic plan for industry. This comprehensive draft strategy aims to achieve targeted industry goals that are aligned with the industry’s vision and mission under four key pillars. This remains a highly collaborative process and is being expertly managed by the capable staff at the CCA on behalf of industry. It is exciting to see this strategy continue to take shape. c

Dave Solverson is president of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

BUILDING TRUST IN CANADIAN BEEF

Avoid poisoning cattle on pasture Limit risk through simple management steps An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This has never been truer when it comes to poisoning risk for cattle on pasture. “Poisoning is a perennial problem that is often underestimated,” says Dr. Barry Blakley, a toxicologist at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine. “It represents substantial dollars in potential losses for producers. It can also pose a serious food safety issue.” Awareness and prevention

The good news is, poisoning on pasture is very preventable, says Blakley, who supervises the toxicology lab for Saskatchewan’s Prairie Diagnostic Services. During peak times such as May-June, the lab sees up to 50 cases per day of problems due to poisoning or nutritional deficiency — two issues that he says are often interrelated. Lead poisoning. Lead from old batteries is the leading culprit, he says. “We see clear spikes in confirmed cases during seeding and harvesting times. Farmers are busy and may forget and leave their used batteries in the field without properly storing them. They may also not check cattle or salt as often as they should. Cattle are attracted to used batteries because of the salty taste. They’ll lick it, chew it and even eat the whole battery.” Be mindful of the potential risk and remove old batteries right away before there’s a chance to forget, he says. “A good approach is to put each used battery in your shed. When you’ve got 10, take them all in to a proper recycling or disposal facility.” Producers should also keep in mind they can inherit the problem, he says. “You may take care of batteries properly today. But depending on the field, there still could be batteries out there from 25 years ago or longer. The cows discover them eventually, so it’s important to watch for these old batteries.” Lead poisoning in cattle herds is not only a short-term economic loss and food safety concern. It can also be a major blow to a producer’s breeding program. “Treatment is not usually economical or effective, so basically all animals contaminated are a writeoff.” Nutritional deficiency. Nutritional deficiencies are also a major factor that can leave cattle more prone to poisoning risk, says Blak-

Keep expired batteries away from livestock or lead poisoning may result.

ley. “When cattle are mineral deficient they are more attracted to other sources. This can be a factor in making cattle that much more prone to try old batteries or to eat noxious weeds they normally wouldn’t be attracted to, particularly during early spring when pasture is sparse.” Don’t put animals out until the pasture is ready to be grazed, he says. “Cattle that have high vitamin status in the fall will overwinter OK but if they go into winter with a marginal status by spring they’re deficient. ” Product residues. These are another potential risk to keep in mind, he says. “Make sure to properly dispose of all containers, and keep cattle away from recently treated fields or feed. Strictly observe the rules for pre-harvest intervals.”

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

 straigh t f ro m t h e h i p

By Brenda Schoepp

Out of Control

n May the World Health Organization (WHO) issued its global report on antibiotic resistance stating that antimicrobial resistance (AMR) “is now a global security threat.” And although the report acknowledges a more disciplined approach to the use of human antibiotic therapy it had a strong message for the food animal industry as well. The situation is getting critical and this is evident by the national and international teams that have been formed to address AMR at home and around the world. The recent press regarding food animal usage of antibiotics is fuelling public interest and one can hardly argue the impact of the data. In 2011 the U.S. used 29.9 million pounds of antibiotic in food animal compared to 7.7 million to treat human conditions. Although that large usage is spread over a great number of food animal and poultry (eight billion chickens alone) that is not the point. The point is that a food system that uses drugs on arrival to treat the sick and the well, is not a food system but a drug system and consumers have figured that out. Antibiotic abstinence is a tough sell but the December 11, 2013 call by the FDA to “phase out the use of medically important antimicrobials in food animals for food production purposes” was answered by 25 of the 26 companies who sell product. The exemption was monensin and bambermycin. This was followed by an April 2014 announcement from the chicken producers in Canada to implement a ban on the injection of ceftiofur, a third-generation antibiotic, into eggs. Ceftiofur has never been approved by Health Canada for the use in eggs, but producers were able to use it extra label under provincial legislation. Quebec producers had voluntarily withdrawn the drug in 2005 and saw resistance drop from 60 per cent to seven per cent. When Alexander Fleming accepted the Nobel prize for the discovery of penicillin, he warned that there would be a day that bacteria would evolve to overpower antibiotics. This day is now and although there are many theories as to where the guilt should lie, we are beyond that point of discussion and ready for the call to action. More than half of the infections in the U.S. are not treatable, one-third of lung infections are not treatable in China, TB does not respond in the EU and in Canada and Cuba over one-half of urinary tract infections (UTI) do not respond to antibiotics. Bacteria has cracked the code and without the introduction of new types of antibiotics since 1987, they are winning the race against time. Some of the heavy hitters are Klebsiella pneumonia which is an intestinal bacteria that is now resistant to last-resort treatments and is the culprit behind hospital-borne infection including intensive care and newborn babies, infections of the blood and pneumonia. E. coli has found safe haven in urinary tract infections and scoffs at the tried-and-true fluoroquinolones which always worked in the past, and gonorrhea no longer responds to treatment of last resort, including cephalosporins.

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

MARSA a well-known superbug has increased its presence by 1,200 per cent and in Canada, vancomycinresistant enterococci (VRE) is bounding through hospitals. A recent study in Canada found that the top five resistant bacteria among all age groups were Staphylococcus aureus (upper respiratory and skin, commonly known as Staph), Escherichia coli (E. coli), Streptococcus pneumoniae (upper respiratory) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (upper respiratory). While the elderly did not respond to antibiotics used to treat UTI, bacteria in children were already resistant to penicillin. This is not a surprise as the family doctor is the primary source of antibiotics for Canadians accounting for 80 per cent of all prescriptions. It is estimated that more than half of those are unnecessary especially in preschool children but daycares and schools now will often refuse admittance unless the child is being “treated.” It is clear that much of the responsibility of AMR lies with the system itself but that does not excuse food animal from the table. The WHO urges both human and animal health to put systems in place to systematically share data from surveillance and to share it on a global stage. This puts the pressure on countries where antibiotics are widely abused especially in human health. The call to action requires a revisit to basic care and vaccinations, improved sanitation and removal of policy that fosters antibiotic dependency such as schools and daycare that refuse a child with a cold. For the animal industry this means addressing the problem, which is often transportation, starvation, dehydration and comingling stress in calves. The bottom line is that we need antibiotics in our world. Young mothers on our very own Prairies died of sepsis post-birth and children with pneumonia rest in our graveyards. Soldiers lived final days in agony while bacteria tore through their bodies and many of our elderly continue to fade from a UTI. And while the beef industry has never been found guilty of human antimicrobial resistance, and that is supported by the research of BCRC, the industry is urged to consider the long-term impacts of an overusage of antimicrobials in food production and more importantly, to really get down to talking about the solutions. Why should we care? We care because 70 per cent of the world’s disease is zoonotic in nature, meaning it transfers between human and animal or animal and human. The situation may seem out of control, but like it or not, beef producers and health professionals are in this together — both striving for a healthy solution to the current resistance to antimicrobials in both humans and animals. c Brenda Schoepp is a motivating speaker and mentor who works with young entrepreneurs across Canada and around the world. She can be contacted through her website www. brendaschoepp.com. All rights reserved. Brenda Schoepp 2014

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Beef 2014: International Livestock Conference This yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conference will focus on the opportunities of marketing the whole carcass. With the trends that are taking shape today, there are many opportunities for the future. Hear an update on the local and global economies and the market opportunities that exist for the entire carcass both here in Canada and around the world.

ILC Beef 2014: Wednesday July 09, 2014

Deerfoot Inn & Casino, 1000, 11500-35 Street SE, Calgary, Alberta

Cattle photo courtesy of Canada Beef Inc.

ILC_2014_CanadianCattlemen_FullPage_Non-Bleed

 associat i o n s

By Debbie Furber

NCFA settles into its role

s the National Cattle Feeders Association (NCFA) settles into its eighth year of operation, chair Jeff Warrack says the group is now having an impact on government decision makers in Ottawa. “Our specific focus is on national issues that affect feedlots and with our presence in Ottawa people recognize we have made contributions and want us there,” says Warrack, who operates a family-run feedlot and grain farm with his two brothers, sister and brother in-law near Strathmore, Alta. The NCFA also works with other industry groups on issues that affect feedlots and the overall state of the beef industry. “It’s important to deliver similar messages,” he says, “but they don’t have to come from a single voice. Many voices have greater impact.” Joining Warrack on the 2014 board of directors are vice-chair Larry Schweitzer (Manitoba), Bill Freding (British Columbia), Herb Groenenboom (Alberta), John Lawton (Alberta), Ryan Thompson (Saskatchewan), Dale Pallister (Ontario), Michel Diagle (Quebec) and past-chair Bill Jameson, ex-offico (Saskatchewan). Forming a national association has brought with it a greater awareness and understanding of regional differences and challenges that can be addressed before taking messages beyond the boardroom. At the end of the day, the underlying issues are very similar, Warrack says. The NCFA has grouped them into three categories underpinning its long-term strategic plan developed last year: growth and sustainability, competitiveness, and industry leadership. Growth and sustainability

How to reverse steadily shrinking cow numbers, feedlot capacity and slaughter capacity has been top of mind at many winter meetings. Canfax reports the loss of 21 finishing feedlots in Alberta and Saskatchewan alone in 2012 and another 15 in 2013, though some are still operating as backgrounding lots. As of the first of this year, there were 157 finishing lots with bunk capacity of 1.44 million head. That compares to

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

the peak around 240 in the two provinces in 2004. Though the number of feedlots started to drop that year, finishing capacity remained fairly stable through to its peak of 1.75 million head in 2008 but has been dropping ever since. “The loss of people from the industry due to lack of profitability for many reasons is an issue across North America and rebuilding will take time,” says Warrack. “It has to start at the cow-calf level and it’s up to us to entice another generation by showing them prospects for opportunity. “Future growth will be with another business model. Our big efficient plants will continue to do well serving their customers. The opportunity is in plants designed to serve different markets because there are lots of other customers out there.” Canfax shows a steady decline in packing capacity and slaughter numbers since 2004, but while packers are not working at maximum capacity Warrack suspects they are likely running at optimal capacity as evidenced by the number of southbound fed cattle this year, despite mandatory COOL. U.S. plants need Canadian animals, but Canadian feeders are paying the extra costs incurred. “If our goal is growth, we need trade agreements that give access with beef not live cattle, and to take advantage of those agreements we need processing plants with the ability to serve them,” Warrack explains. The NCFA, therefore, supported the Canadian government’s efforts in all trade negotiations and lobbied hard for the removal of barriers blocking the sale of the Rancher’s Beef plant at Balzac that was shuttered in 2007. This state-of-the-art facility is now under new ownership and poised to become Canada’s largest European Union-approved plant. The NCFA pushed for and contributed to the independent review of the 2012 massive beef recall at former XL Foods and has been actively following up with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to see that the recommendations are implemented. An unexpected turn of events was Service Canada’s March decision to remove feedlots from the newly created agriculture stream for the temporary foreign worker

“ Future growth will be with another business model.” Jeff Warrack Chair, National Cattle Feeders Association

program. The reason given was that feedlots aren’t primary agriculture. The NCFA actively participated in last year’s government-industry task force looking at ways to improve the program that recommended creating a separate stream for agricultural workers to speed up the process and make labour more accessible as needed. The new Western Livestock Price Insurance Program is one of this year’s highlights that the beef industry across the West has been lobbying for since Alberta launched its price insurance program in 2009. Warrack says there has been good uptake on the feeder program in Alberta and even in the fed program despite the fact that most fed cattle are forward contracted. “The insurance program needs cash prices to create the settlement indexes and due to

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

associations

the lack of price discovery in the cash market for fed cattle, the people running the program have had to protect themselves, which is understandable,” he explains. Competitiveness

Several regulatory files remain on the NCFA’s radar screen to provide input as needed and opportunities arise. Among those is support for the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Co-operation Council that works on aligning regulations between the two countries such as veterinary drug reviews and approvals; working with the Canadian Beef Grading Agency to replace the current three yield grade classes with the U.S. fiveyield-grade; and join with other industries

to modernize the product-of-Canada labelling guidelines and feed regulations. A new file that could have ramifications, particularly for eastern feeders who rely on a supply of feeder calves from the West, is a potential review of cattle transport regulations that may change the guidelines for the time cattle can spend on a truck without rest stops. “We want to have a hand in this to ensure a balance between animal welfare and commerce,” Warrack says. “Maybe there are other metrics, such as density, that would make more sense and we need to know what the U.S. regulations are so we’re not put at a competitive disadvantage.” Health Canada is now among the depart-

ments the NCFA has an interest in after last October’s announcement that the CFIA will report to the minister of health on food safety activities rather than the minister of agriculture. There have been concerns among producers about how this would all pan out, but having just returned from a meeting with Health Canada, Warrack says it looks like regulations of concern to feeders will remain with the minister of agriculture. The mandate of the NCFA also includes working with other cattle associations on industry initiatives and developing strategy training and educational programs, and helping governments and the public understand the feeding sector. c

Quiet industry Leader

SaleS & Product SuPPort ProfeSSionalS Nester Livestock equipmeNt LtD 1-888-684-3691

•

VuLcan, ab

www.NesterLivestockequipmeNt.com www.canadiancattlemen.ca

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

 prime cuts

By Steve Kay

COOL’s legal turn

he U.S. is ruled by laws and regulations. But the latter are often what have the most impact on businesses. That’s what happened with country-of-origin labelling. It’s also as difficult to overturn a regulation as it is to rescind a law. That’s why it’s remarkable that nine North American meat and livestock organizations, including the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and the Canadian Pork Council, have gotten as far as they have with a legal challenge to the new COOL rule. Few gave them much chance of legal success after a U.S. district court judge last September denied the groups’ motion for a preliminary injunction against the rule’s implementation. Then three judges in a federal appeals court this March turned down their appeal. But the full appeals court vacated the decision a week later and ordered a full court hearing. Even the three judges suggested this in their decision but the move was still a positive development for the plaintiffs. The next step was for the full court (11 judges) to hear oral arguments, which they did on May 19. Even more gratifying for the plaintiffs was that the judges appeared to express considerable doubts about USDA’s constitutional rationale for forcing COOL on the industry and on retailers. The judges zeroed in on one question: What is the government’s interest in requiring COOL for meat and other food products? Far from being a lost cause, the appeal is increasingly being seen by constitutional scholars as an opportunity to further define constitutional arguments regarding compelled speech. The earlier district court ruling had set the precedent that speculative consumer interests might be enough. But this led the nine plaintiffs to challenge this vague notion. The federal government typically has to reach a higher level of compelling interest, such as health, safety or preventing consumer deception, say observers. The plaintiffs say USDA has never explained why the “born, raised and slaughtered” designations on COOL meat labels were so important that they must be compelled rather than just permitted and provided voluntarily. Judges’ questions during the hearing suggested they are skeptical of USDA’s argument for requiring mandatory labels. The attorney representing USDA argued

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

that the labelling requirement gives meat consumers information they want and need about which products originate solely within U.S. borders and which come from Canada or Mexico. But the judges said the government’s argument was too broad. Regulatory agencies could have too much power over what is printed on labels if they need only prove the information they seek is in consumers’ interest, they said. Under questioning, the attorney said the government would always be justified in requiring labels as long as they provide consumers with information they want or need to make informed decisions.

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

The judges seemed skeptical of USDA’s argument for mandatory labels

To the courtroom audience’s amusement, according to Reuters, several judges posed hypothetical situations to the attorney to exemplify how the law could be applied too broadly under his arguments. Chief Judge Merrick Garland asked him if he thought the government could force milk manufacturers to include missing children on labels. Judge Janice Brown asked if the agencies could require a label telling consumers that beef production increases greenhouse gas emissions. The full appeals court is not expected to issue its decision for several months. It will likely come after a panel of the World Trade Organization rules whether the COOL rule is in compliance with the U.S.’s international trade obligations or not. It’s just possible though that the WTO and the appeals court might strike a double blow against COOL. That might put an end to a saga that began in the late 1980s and has cost the North American industry billions of dollars. c

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

 TH E IN DUSTRY

NewsRoundup Conservation

Western Ranchlands combines conservation and profit

A venture unique to ranching in Canada is taking shape in the foothills of southwestern Alberta. Western Ranchlands Inc. is an investment and land management company founded last year by a group of experienced ranchers and business professionals. Plans are on track for an official launch later this year. John Cross, who ranches west of Nanton and is the company’s director of livestock operations, recently gave Canadian Cattlemen a preview of its program. Cross says Western Ranchlands will combine ranching, conservation and rural land investment under one roof by “using harmonious ecological and economic principles to perpetuate superior land stewardship.” Primarily, Western Ranchlands is an opportunity for ranch families and partners wanting to retire or move on, to divest all or part of their holdings secure in the knowledge that their land will remain intact as a working ranch under a professional management team. “The company will own land very long

term to put together large landscapes to manage for high value and profitability,” says Cross. Conservation easements are important, but Cross says this new concept puts the market behind conservation to give investors a valid alternative to putting up more subdivisions on ranchland within reach of city limits. Investing in ranch land is an opportunity that’s rarely available to individual investors. Even if the price isn’t enough to scare off all but the wealthiest investors, someone has to successfully run the ranch to realize a return on the investment. Cross’s interest in this concept arose through his involvement with community initiatives centred around land use issues, such as the Pekisko Group of ranch families and the Southern Alberta Land Trust Society (SALTS), of which he is the current president. SALTS is best known for providing voluntary conservation easements for landowners that place limits on the size and type of development on ranch properties to preserve their agricultural potential. SALTS is also involved in several other projects such as the Southern Foothills Study that is collecting accurate land use data for more informed land-use planning

in an area that is a vital watershed of the South Saskatchewan River system. “Part of it was a cumulative effects assessment looking at all of the land uses for the past 100 years and where we’re headed in the next 50 years. It educated me to the fact that we are headed toward a lot of fragmentation,” Cross says. “Western Ranchlands will aggregate land, not fragment it.” More details are available at www.westernranchlands.ca.

Associations

Streamlined BCCA board gets down to work

Lary Fossum of Dawson Creek was acclaimed as president of the newly slimmed down board of directors at the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association annual meeting on May 24 in Creston. Linda Allison of Princeton was elected vice-president. The new streamlined governance model breaks the province into seven zones. The representatives for each zone were elected by mail-in ballot before the annual meeting. Continued on page 36

Now Quads Phil Goulet of Airdrie, Alta., saw our May item on Samantha Radowits’s triplets and wrote to ask if we’d like to go up one more to a quad birth. That’s right, four calves from one cow but unfortunately not all survived. As Goulet explains it he brought two of his commercial Red Angus cows into the barn on March 27 in preparation for what looked like a couple of imminent births. When he checked around 8 p.m., both cows had had their calves but unfortunately, the heifer calf from the one cow was already dead. “It was a pretty small calf,” says Goulet,“so I put (the cow) in the maturity pen and quickly pulled a second bull calf which was fine. They were both good so I went to bed thinking she had had twins. In the morning when I checked the cow that I had left in the barn overnight, there were two more healthy bull calves, for a total of three calves looking back at me.” The dam and all three of her remaining quads are doing fine now. Goulet apologized for the poor quality of the picture. He explains that he was “a bit busy” at the time.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

News Roundup Continued from page 35

Fossum says two immediate priorities for the 2014 board will be to monitor and hopefully have some influence on the regulations being written for the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Amendment Act passed May 29, and the Water Sustainability Act of 2014, which are expected to come into force next spring. The issues and challenges surrounding these acts aren’t new to the BCCA. The group prepared policy positions on both matters back in 2010. Restructuring the ALR has become a sensitive issue, however, and the BCCA has commended the province for taking on the revision of the act implemented in 1974, a time when there were programs set up to support agricultural and rural communities. The act restricts the economic activities that can be carried out on land designated as agricultural reserves. The BCCA is look-

PRESENTS…

ing for some added flexibility for ranchers under the revised act that will allow them to diversify their operations to improve profitability and in turn improve the viability of agricultural communities. Dealing with the “Queen’s livestock” has been an ongoing challenge for British Columbia ranchers, Fossum says. The BCCA welcomed the province’s April announcement of a new wolf management plan and will encourage the government to put together a complete package that looks at forage and stored feed losses due to ungulates as well as predation. Projects supported by provincial and federal funding under the four-year-old B.C. Ranching Task Force will likely be tapering off this year. One of those is the Behind the Beef program that made trained beef educators available to grocery stores across the province to explain the day-to-day realities of beef production, animal care, land stewardship and food safety along with the nutritional benefits of beef. Many of those same messages are delivered by four new in-store videos that were released to project partners for comment on May 29. Copies of the final versions will

also be made available to BCCA reps to back up their own presentations at public meetings and trade shows. B.C. Beef Day remains a highlight for the BCCA. In each of the last five years the province has set aside one day to celebrate the value of the beef industry to the provincial ecomomy. This year producers had to head to Victoria immediately after their annual meeting to join Premier Christy Clark and close to 500 people on the back lawn of the legislative grounds for some barbecued certified B.C. Beef. BCCA pastpresident and current lieutenant governor, the Honorable Judith Guichon, opened the ceremony. Industry representatives then met with ministers and staff from the ministries of environment, forest and natural resource operations, agriculture, aboriginal affairs, international trade, and jobs creation to discuss many of the issues and challenges facing the industry today. Another highlight of 2014 was the launch of the Western Livestock Price Insurance Program in British Columbia on April 8, creating more of a level playing field for producers across the West.

A FREE DEAL FOR CUSTOM FEEDLOT OPERATORS Make sure you take advantage of your free listing in the annual National Custom feedlot Guide in the September issue of Canadian Cattlemen — The Beef Magazine.

All you have to do is fill in the blanks below and mail, Fax or Email it back to us before August 1, 2014. We’ll do the rest, at no charge to you.

Feedlot name: ____________________________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________________ Postal code: _________________________ Email: ____________________________________________ Contacts: ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone:________________________ Fax:_______________________ Cell: _________________________ Lot capacity: _____________ Website: ____________________________________________________ Services:

custom order buying and selling

pen sharing

market analysis

trucking

backgrounding

hedging

health program

Don’t delay. Send us your free Custom feedlot Guide listing today to get national exposure for your business. Remember, the deadline is August 1, 2014.

SEND TO:

Gren Winslow Canadian Cattlemen 1666 Dublin Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R3H 0H6 Fax: 866-399-5710 Email: gren@fbcpublishing.com

C AT T L E M E N · J U N E 2 0 1 4

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

NEWS ROU NDUP

Marketing

The Livestock Markets Association of Canada welcomed a feisty field of 27 competitors to Heartland Livestock Services in Moose Jaw, Sask., for its annual auctioneering championship and the Sask./Man. auctioneering championship on May 23. Danny Skeels of VJV Ponoka, Alta., who was LMAC’s first auctioneering champion in 1997 and went on to earn the international and world titles, returned this year to claim the Masters title. Other previous champions who gave Skeels a good run for the green jacket in this one-time event were Travis Rogers, Brennin Jack, Ward Cutler, Dean Edge, Justin Gattey, Des Plewman and Brad Stenberg. Skeels and this year’s champion, Shawn Gist of Fort Saskatchewan, Alta., who sells for VJV Ponoka and Dawson Creek, B.C., as well as Osman Auction at Edmonton, encourage their counterparts from across Canada to get in on the action next year when the championship returns to Manitoba. Reserve champion, Kirk Goldsmith of Dryland Cattle Trading Corp., Veteran, Alta., was folShawn Gist lowed by Rob Bergevin of VJV Foothills, Stavely, Alta., in third place, Calvin Kuepher of Newton, Ont., representing the Ontario Livestock Exchange, in fourth, and Garth Rogers of Rochester, Alta., representing North Central Livestock at Clyde, Alta., in fifth. Rookie-of-the year honours went to Greg Weaver of Tomslake, B.C., who sells for VJV Dawson Creek. The Jim Raffan memorial buckle for the most congenial auctioneer as voted by the contestants went to Tyler Cronkhite of the host market. The top-scoring auctioneers from Manitoba and Saskatchewan received the Sask./Man. championship titles rather than holding separate competitions in the same region this year. Tyler Slawinski of McCreary, Man., who sells for Gladstone/Ashton markets in Manitoba, earned championship honours, while Ryan Hurlburt of Heartland Livestock Services, Yorkton, Sask., received the Bob Wright memorial award, presented by Rick Wright in honour of his father who was a professional auctioneer for 50 years. The judges were Myles Masson, Ste Rose Auction Mart Ltd., Man.; Dave Clark, Clark Bros. Livestock, Dutton, Ont.; Brian Good, Canadian Angus Association director of field services, Calgary; Chance Martin, VJV Ponoka, Alta.; Ryan Gibson, Gibson Livestock, Moose Jaw, Sask.; and 2013 champion Travis Rogers, Nilsson Bros., Clyde, Alta. This year’s winner of the Auction Market of the Year award was presented by Brian Good of the Canadian Angus Association to Perlich Bros. of Lethbridge, Alta.

Rick Wright of Virden, Man., became the fifth inductee into Livestock Markets Association of Canada’s (LMAC)s hall of fame at the group’s annual meeting in Regina last month. The award was established to recognize individuals for their contributions to livestock marketing in Canada. During Wright’s 33-year career to date as Rick Wright an auctioneer, order buyer and auction market manager, he has been a staunch supporter of the auction ring for marketing livestock. He’s also made a heavy commitment to the LMAC over the years and its provincial affiliate in Manitoba. He attended his first meeting of the Manitoba Livestock Marketing Association in 1980 and served as its president for 10 years and more recently as its administrator. Wright served for many years as the Manitoba representative to LMAC, and was elected president in 1996. He has been elected by the members as a director-at-large for the past 25 years, giving him the distinction of being the LMAC’s longest-serving director. He is currently the LMAC’s executive secretary and was elected to another two-year term at the recent annual general meeting. For the past eight years he has served as the LMAC’s representa-

Auctioneers rattle it out

Rick Wright named to LMAC Hall of Fame

Live and work on a New Zealand, Australian or European farm Rural placement opportunities for young adults ages 18-30

www.agriventure.com

1-888-598-4415

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Continued on page 39

FROSTFREE NOSEPUMPS LTD. SIMPLE & RELIABLE YEAR-ROUND LIVESTOCK WATERING

• Saves money • Saves time • Saves the environment

866-843-6744

www.FrostfreeNosepumps.com C at t l e m e n · J u n e 2 0 1 4

CSA Bus. Card Jan04

plainjans.com

Roper

gloves

620-872-5777

: from

11:21 AM

Unbeatable Maternal Performance