Canadian cattlemen by Farm Business Communications

CALVES FROM VACCINATED DAMS DO BETTER · BeefWatch

THE BEEF MAGAZINE

MAY 2017 $3.00 WWW.CANADIANCATTLEMEN.CA

WE NEED MORE

Dave Solverson, Camrose, Alta.

heifers

Publications Mail Agreement Number 40069240

Rethink Your Operation

READY FOR MORE EFFICIENT HAY PRODUCTION? Focus on these three factors. IN THIS ISSUE  SEE PAGE 8

Turn out with LONGRANGE ® for season-long

PEACE OF MIND. 1 INJECTION • 2 PHASES • EXTENDED RELEASE COVERING UP TO 150 DAYS 1

Treatment in the spring with LONGRANGE for parasite control leads to better average daily gain (ADG).

LONGRANGE vs. Conventional Dewormers 0.28 lbs./day more

In a stocker trial with 15,000+ enrolled head, cattle treated with LONGRANGE gained an average 0.28 lbs./day more than those treated with conventional dewormers. That equals 28 lbs. over 100 days.*

2.5

Treat your cattle this spring. Talk to your veterinarian about LONGRANGE.

Average Daily Gain (ADG) in lbs. Difference ADG 0.24*

2.25

Difference ADG 0.40

Difference ADG 0.30*

2.33 2.14

1.93

1.75 1.5

Difference ADG 0.28*

1.93

1.84

2.07 1.79

1.69

1.25

Injectable

Conventional Dewormers

Pour-on

Combinations

LONGRANGE

Entire Study

*Statistically significant (P<0.01)

Conventional Dewormers Combinations • moxidectin + fenbendazole • ivermectin + fenbendazole • doramectin + fenbendazole • doramectin + fenbendazole + ivermectin • albendazole + ivermectin

1 Based on the Canadian LONGRANGE label. 2 Data on file at Merial. * 28 lbs. = 12.72 kg. Merial is now part of Boehringer Ingelheim. ®LONGRANGE and the Cattle Head Logo are registered trademarks of Merial. ©2017 Merial Canada Inc. All rights reserved. LAGE-17-5560-LONGRG-AD-E

Available in 500 mL and 250 mL bottles. Administer subcutaneously at 1 mL/50 kg.

Injectable • formulations of doramectin or ivermectin Pour-on • formulations of ivermectin

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 Field Editor: Debbie Furber Box 1168, Tisdale, SK S0E 1T0 (306) 873-4360 Fax (306) 873-4360 Email: debbie.furber@fbcpublishing.com

Contents canadian cattlemen · MAY 2017 · Volume 80, No. 5

 M A NAG E M E N T Cull a little easier the first time around.

Advertising Sales Sales Director: Cory Bourdeaud’hui (204) 954-1414 Email: cory@fbcpublishing.com National Sales: Mike Millar (306) 251-0011 Email: mike.millar@fbcpublishing.com Tiffiny Taylor (204) 228-0842 Email: tiffiny.taylor@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 Publisher: Lynda Tityk Email: lynda.tityk@fbcpublishing.com Editorial Director: Laura Rance Email: laura@fbcpublishing.com Production Director: Shawna Gibson Email: shawna@fbcpublishing.com Circulation Manager: Heather Anderson Email: heather@fbcpublishing.com President: Bob Willcox Glacier FarmMedia LP Email: bwillcox@farmmedia.com

we need more heifers  paras i tes

FEATURES Musings on how much cattle eat and drink. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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.

Six ways to keep your wormer working. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

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

A decade of RFID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 We need more heifers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Subscription rates in Canada — $45 for one year, $67 for 2 years, $95 for 3 years (prices include GST). Manitoba residents add 8% PST. U.S. subscription rate — $35 (U.S. funds). Subscription rate outside Canada and U.S. — $55 per year. Single copies $3. We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Periodical Fund of the Department of Canadian Heritage. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40069240. Canadian Postmaster: Return undeliverable Canadian addresses (covers only) to: Circulation Dept., PO Box 9800, Winnipeg, MB R3C 3K7. U.S. Postmaster: Send address changes and undeliverable addresses (covers only) to: Circulation Dept., PO Box 9800, Winnipeg, MB R3C 3K7.

Calves from vaccinated dams did better in the feedlot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Six ways to keep your wormer working

 G R A ZI NG

DEPARTMENTS

Member

LIVESTOCK PUBLICATIONS COUNCIL

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 1-800-665-0502.

A pro’s tips on building durable barbed-wire fences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Verified Beef Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

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

Privacy Statement At Glacier FarmMedia LP we are committed to protecting your privacy. Glacier FarmMedia LP will only collect personal information if it is required for reasonable purposes related to our business operations. As part of our commitment to enhance customer service, we may also share personal information with our affiliates or strategic business partners. For more information regarding how we collect, use and disclose personal information, please refer to our Privacy Policy at http://farmmedia.com/privacy-policy, or write to: Privacy Officer, Glacier FarmMedia, P.O. Box 9800, Station Main, Winnipeg, MB R3C 3K7.

Overgrazing is a matter of timing . . . . . . . 24

Beef Watch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

PRINTED IN CANADA

The editors and journalists who write, contribute and provide opinions to Canadian Cattlemen and Glacier FarmMedia LP attempt to provide accurate and useful opinions, information and analysis. However, the editors, journalists, Canadian Cattlemen and Glacier FarmMedia LP cannot and do not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in this publication. Use or non-use of any information is at the reader’s sole risk, and we assume no responsibility for any actions or decisions taken by any reader of this publication based on any and all information provided.

Overgrazing is a matter of timing

Congratulations! To our May survey winner, Allan Zukiwski, Andrew, Alta. This month’s survey is on page 46. Cover photo: Our photo by Solverson family.

Comment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Newsmakers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Our History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Research on the Record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Free Market Reflections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Straight from the Hip. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Vet Advice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Prime Cuts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 CCA Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 News Roundup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Purely Purebred. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 The Markets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 Market Talk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Sales and Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

 COMMENT

By Gren Winslow

Albertans now get to choose

ith his introduction of Bill 9 on April 11 Alberta Agriculture Minister Oneil Carlier gave the Alberta Beef Producers (ABP) the gift of a second chance to unify the provincial cattle industry as it faces increasingly uncertain times. The bill revokes previous marketing legislation to give producers the right to choose via a plebiscite whether they want a refundable or non-refundable checkoff to fund their industry organization. It’s about time. Back in 2009 the beef industry in Alberta was still suffering from the fallout of BSE and warring over which direction the industry should take to dig itself out of the hole. The tension over what should be done and who should have the money to do it eventually compelled then agriculture minister George Groeneveld to convince his colleagues to rewrite Alberta’s marketing legislation to make producer checkoffs refundable. At the time there was some thought producers should be given the choice to declare which organization would get their checkoff dollars while others thought some checkoff dollars that were refunded would be diverted to organizations that had a different view of what should be done. For a time, it was chaotic. By September of that first year everyone realized that an open refund policy would starve the national promotion and research activities that were needed more than ever at that time. From that came a memorandum of understanding between the ABP and the Alberta Cattle Feeders’ Association (ACFA) to turn the $1 a head that Alberta was collecting for national marketing/promotion efforts into a mandatory levy. It was a rough start but in retrospect that may have been the first step in bringing the Alberta industry together. Fast-forward eight years and we now have a national beef strategy that all factions had a hand in creating. We have a National Cattle Feeders’ Association, and while it is thinly funded it is more often found at the table today when policy is being made. And we have a national debate on the need for an increase in the national checkoff to

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

do more on the marketing front and fund more research that benefits beef producers in every part of the country. So maybe it is time to put the demons of 2009 to rest. Sure, there are still tensions between the various factions. That is natural in this business, but with all the consolidation and value chains appearing today, even those tensions seem to be more manageable now. Certainly with the Trump administration itching to renegotiate NAFTA, and U.S. trade officials openly praising the value of 332 studies to correct trade imbalances, and congressmen swooning over import taxes, there is need for unity on our side of the border.

inister Carlier M deserves some credit for giving them the chance to choose The one constant with trade fights is they’re expensive. In the past when the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) suited up to battle 332 actions on COOL they often had to dip into the Alberta Beef Producers’ back pocket to cover legal fees and unexpected expenses. That’s a bit harder to do with a refundable checkoff. For the year ending March 31, 2016 the ABP refunded $2,352,697 on checkoff revenues of $10.38 million. Looking at it another way refunds add up to about 64 per cent of the $3.69 million raised that year by the Alberta’s mandatory $1 checkoff to pay for promotion and research. It’s a tidy sum. But that is only one side of the challenge presented by a refundable levy. The other is the uncertainty. ABP executives can never be sure from one year to the next how much they will have to pay out in refunds although the total number of claims made every six months seems to have settled around 400. The last recorded number of refund requests was 429 with 294 from cow-calf producers and 135 by feedlot operators. Feedlots

generally claim about 88 per cent of the refunds, and much of that goes to a handful of larger lots. To be safe ABP has had to adopt an accounting system of paying forward. It’s like the layaway plans your parents or grandparents used to use to buy those little luxuries in life. Each year once they’ve paid out the refunds and dealer rebates they set a little under $5 million in a fund to pay their operating expenses for the next year (which includes a monthly payment to the CCA for the work it does). The rest goes into funds for future years, trade advocacy and special projects. The upshot is the ABP has had to learn how to live leaner which isn’t a bad thing but it makes it harder to recover if hit with big bills to lobby Washington or Ottawa. Carlier has made it very clear he has no interest in the choice producers make, only that they have the right to choose. How people feel about that should become clear after a plebiscite is held. The ABP will lose little time in asking the provincial marketing council to conduct a plebiscite once Bill 9 is passed in the legislature. The next step will be to decide on the question that should be asked. ABP has been clear that it will seek support for a return to a non-refundable checkoff. The details, however, will be the subject of discussions between the provincial marketing council, which will conduct the vote, and the ABP, hopefully with the input and cooperation of other industry organizations, particularly the Alberta Cattle Feeders’ Association (ACFA). Rich Smith, the executive director of the ABP says they are having ongoing discussions with the ACFA to see if they can arrive at a set of conditions under which it could support a return to a non-refundable checkoff. That is hopeful. In the end, it will be up to the beef producers of Alberta to decide how their checkoff funds should be managed. And that’s as it should be. Minister Carlier deserves some credit for giving them the chance to choose. c

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

THE ALL-NEW 2017 SUPER DUTY®.

When you’re hauling horses, cows, a cat or a deer, your valuable cargo demands a truck that overachieves: the 2017 Super Duty®. So you can pull more, our engineers pushed further to make it the toughest and most capable Super Duty® ever. Raw power was made smarter with class-exclusive^ technologies that help reduce steering effort, backup your trailer, avoid a collision, stay in your lane, and so much more. Smartest. Toughest. Undisputed. Only Super Duty®.

BEST-IN-CLASS MAX. TOWING 32,500 LBS*

BEST-IN-CLASS MAX. PAYLOAD 7,630 LBS**

BEST-IN-CLASS DIESEL TORQUE 925 LB-FT***

BEST-IN-CLASS GAS TORQUE ¤ 430 LB-FT

EXPLORE THE NEW SUPER DUTY®. FORD.CA/SUPERDUTY Vehicle may be shown with optional equipment. *Maximum towing capacity of 32,500 lbs on F-450 DRW 4x4 4x4 with with 6.7L V8 die diesel engin ngine. e. When Whe prop properly erly equ e ipped with available factory-installed equipment. Class is Full-Size Heavy Duty Pickups over 8,500 lbs. GVWR based on Ford segmentatio a n.. **When pro p perl perlyy equipp equipped. ed. Maxi Maximum mum payl payload oa of 7,630 7,630 lbs l on F-350 DRW 4x2 with 6.2L V8 gas engine. Class *** is Full-Size Heavy Duty Pickups over 8,500 lbs. GVWR based on Ford segmentat tation. i M mum dies Maxi iesel el torqu torque e of o 925 9 lblb-ft ft on nF F-250/ 25 F-35 -350 0 with with 6.7L V8 diesel engine. When properly equipped. Class is Full-Size Heavy Duty Pickups over 8,500 lbs. GVWR based on Ford segmenta nt tion tion.. ¤Maxi Max mum gas torq torque ue of of 430 lb -ft on F-250 F-250/F-3 / 50 with with 6.2L V8 gas engine. When properly equipped. Class is Full-Size Heavy Duty Pickups over 8,500 lbs. GVWR based on Ford segmentation. ^20 0a avail vailable able cla class-e ss-exclu xclusive sive fea feature turess (Adapt (Adaptive ive crui ru se contr control ol and a collision warning with brake support, Adaptive steering, BLIS (Blind Spot Information System) with trailer coverage, BoxLink with premium lockingg clea c ts, Fact Factoryory-inst installe alled d custom customer-p er-place laced d traile trailer ccamera, Inatable rear outboard safety belts, Multicontour front seats with Active Motion, Power deployable running boards, PowerScope power-telescoping and p power--fold folding ing trai trailer ler tow w mirr mirrors, ors, Rem Remote ote tailgate release with power lock, Flat load oor, Stowable loading ramps, SYNC 3, Tailgate step, Trailer reverse guidance, Trailer tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS), ) Up U tto 7 availab a le e camer cam as, a Util ti ity lighting system (LED side-mirror spotlights, Smart trailer tow connector, Collapsible under-seat storage that folds into at load oor). Class is Full-Size Pickups over 8,500 lbs GVWR. Dri D vere assist features are supplemental and do not replace the driver’s attention, judgment and need to control the vehicle. ©2017 Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited. All rights reserved

 THE INDUST RY

NewsMakers Chris White is the new president and CEO of the Canadian Meat Council. He comes to the council with 20 years experience in government and industry relaChris White tions as chief of staff for five federal cabinet ministers and vicepresident of government relations in the finance, insurance, and auto sectors. The Canadian Meat Council represents 400 federally inspected meat processing establishments with annual sales of $28 billion, including exports of $6.1 billion, and 66,000 jobs making it the largest component of this country’s food processing sector. Grant Zalinko has been promoted to the position of executive director of the livestock branch in the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. He was previously the manager Grant Zalinko of the livestock development unit and chiefly responsible for the development and updating of the ministry’s livestock strategy. He and his wife also manage a small commercial cattle operation near Rouleau. Garner Deobald of Hodgeville, Sask., has been re-elected president of the Canadian Beef Breeds Council. Joining him on the board are vice-president Roger Peters from Garner Deobald Red Deer, and new directors Jay Cross, David Sibbald, and Tessa Verbeek from Calgary, and Reed Rigney from Westlock, Alta. Bruce Holmquist of Sask atoon is the new president of the Canadian Western Agribition, an organization he has been involved with as a volunteer and executive member for the Bruce Holmquist past 40 years. He is also the general manager of the Canadian Simmental Association. Joining him on the executive are: vice-president Chris Lee from Arcola, past president Stewart Stone of

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

Regina and directors at large Kim Hextall of Grenfell, Ross Macdonald from Lake Alma and Bryce Thompson of Regina. David Sibbald is the new president and chairman of the board of the Calgary Stampede. He is also the current president of the Canadian Angus Associaiton and will continue David Sibbald to fill that role until the conclusion of the CAA annual meeting in Brandon on June 10. His term as president of the Stampede board runs until 2019. Cattlemen Tim Oleksyn and George Cooper were inducted into the Saskatch ewan Agricultural Hall of Fame at the Western Development Museum in Saskatoon on April 22, 2017. Tim Oleksyn, a rancher and farmer from Shellbrook has been a supporter of beef research for decades. He has been a board member and chair of the Western Beef DevelTim Oleksyn opment Centre and the Beef Cattle Research Council and served on the board of the Saskatchewan Agriculture Development Fund, Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute and the new Livestock and Forage Centre of Excellence (LFCE). He is currently on the fundraising committee to secure the remaining funds needed to make the LFCE a reality. George Cooper of West Bend served on the boards of the Canadian Shorthorn Association, Saskatchewan Livestock Association and Canadian Western Agribition, and was president of George Cooper the Regina Bull Sale. He passed away in August 2016. Also inducted were Art Mainil a founding member of the Palliser Wheat Growers Association and founding president of the Weyburn Inland Terminal, soil researcher Bob McKercher, seed grower and community advocate Donna Edwards, and biotech researcher Wilf Keller. Alberta Farm Animal Care (AFAC) presented three Awards of Distinction during the recent Livestock Care Conference in

Leduc to recognize individuals or groups that have made exceptional contributions to farm animal care in Alberta. The Communication Award was presented to Alberta Beef Quality Starts Here, a non-profit, industry-supported organization that has operated as the provincial delivery agent for the Verified Beef Production (VBP) program since 2003. In 2016 the agency had to step up its training and communication activities to include three new modules addressing animal care, stewardship and biosecurity under the VBP Plus (VBP+) program. The Award for Industry Leadership was presented to Jackie Wepruk, a founder and current general man ager of the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC). The NFACC Jackie Wepruk has facilitated the development of updated codes of practice for the care and handling of different livestock species in Canada, and the development of animal care assessment programs. The Award for Innovation was presented to veterinarian and long-time farm animal care advocate Dr. Merle Olson, for his tireless efforts in the research, development and commerDr. Merle Olson cialization of economical pharmaceutical options for pain management and parasite control in livestock. As vice-president of research and development at Solvet Dr. Olson developed Meloxicam Oral Suspension — a new product for cattle available at www.afac.ab.ca. Dr. Donald E. Buckingham has been named CEO of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, an Ottawa-based independent non-profit research organization that develops policy options for the agricultural and agri-food sectors. Buckingham is currently chair of the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal. His new position is effective July 1, 2017. The Verified Beef Production Plus (VBP+) program has officially launched a new website, which offers a single-stop comprehensive resource for all matters related to VBP+. It can be found on the Internet at verifiedbeefproductionplus.ca. c

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

 our histo ry

A ranch calendar By Bert Smith Reprinted from the December 1950 Canadian Cattlemen

Here are the last six months of the ranch caldendar drawings by Canadian Cattlemen artist Bert Smith that were exhibited at the Western Stock Growers Association’s 54th Annual Convention.

july

august

september

october

november

december

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

Rethink YOuR OPeRatiOn

Focus on These Three Factors for High-efficiency Hay More efficient hay production is good for your feed and bottom line

ou know feed is one of your largest expenses. Did you also know that ramping up your hay quality can help reduce those expenses? That’s where highefficiency hay comes in. “Forage quality determines the amount of supplemental feed that should be purchased to maintain livestock performance,” said Brian Spencer, Case IH Hay and Forage Marketing Manager. “Make sure your hay tools work as a system to achieve the right mix of power, efficiency and versatility to not just get the job done, but help you harvest each crop at peak nutritional value.” Most forages lose 20 percent of their total digestible nutrients and 40 percent of their protein just 10 days after their optimal harvest stage.1 To improve forage quality for his 250+ customers, DJ Wassenaar, owner of County Line Custom Farming in Jarvis, Ontario, continually seeks productivity gains. “From upgrading to RTK guidance and ISOBUS automation for our hay tools to investing in Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVTs) on our tractors, we rely on our equipment to efficiently cover acres and, ultimately, provide better feed,” Wassenaar said. High-efficiency hay starts with three factors:

1. SelecT The righT ToolS Give your operation an edge this hay season with an equipment upgrade. The complete lineup of Case IH hay tools includes windrowers, mowers and conditioners, wheel rakes, balers and tractors. Here are a few highlights:

AdvertoriAl

DC3 series disc mower conditioners: Industry-leading cut and crimp for superior hay quality. The modular cutterbar is designed for high-capacity operation with heavyduty components, including shearhub-protected gearboxes and quickchange knives. RB5 series round balers: Wide pickups, high-capacity feeding systems and durable belts and rolls consistently build dense, uniform bales — driving down the cost of handling. Whether you’re baling hay, straw or alfalfa, heavy-duty pick-ups provide a clean sweep of crops and uninterrupted feeding. “Overall reliability on our Case IH balers is unbelievable,” Wassenaar said. Reliable tractors: Maxxum® (116-145 hp), Puma® (150-240 hp) and Optum™ (271-300 hp) series tractors shine in hay and livestock applications. Best of all, they feature Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) after-treatment technology for more fuel-efficient horsepower. With Case IH engines, there’s no particulate filter to clean, no regeneration period and 600 operating hours between oil changes. Just add a Case IH loader and you have the ultimate utility tractor. “The MultiControl Armrest and electro-hydraulic joystick on our Puma CVT tractors put key controls right up front. This level of comfort reduces operator fatigue during long nights of bale wrapping and hauling,” Wassenaar added.

2. Tap inTo new Technology The latest haying technology can help you get more done with less input.

County Line Custom Farming relies on Case IH round balers for high-capacity baling. iSOBuS Class 3: This automated functionality provides two-way communication between the baler and tractor. Here’s what can happen when pairing a Model Year 2017 or newer RB5 series round baler with a Maxxum CVT or Puma tractor: When the target bale size is reached, the tractor automatically stops. The net wrap is applied, and the bale is ejected, all without operator input. advanced Farming Systems (aFS) accuGuide™ autoguidance: Better guidance while cutting reduces overlaps and helps save on fuel, labor and machine expenses. “We recently upgraded to AFS RTK-level autoguidance for our disc mower conditioner,” Wassenaar said. “The improved accuracy and efficiency will not only pay off on our first pass but every pass thereafter.”

3. harveST aT peak nuTriTional value “With the right equipment and technology, you can focus on a timely harvest,” Spencer said. When

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: CASEIH.COM/HAYCANADA

it comes to a more efficient harvest, he cites the following best practices: • Rake or ted at 40 percent to 50 percent moisture.2 • Bale at 18 percent to 20 percent moisture (small square), 16 percent moisture (medium square, round bale) or 14 percent moisture (large square or round bale).2 • Store hay off ground and under cover. • Adjust fertility immediately after the first cutting.3 reSoUrCeS: 1

Henning JC, Wheaton HN. Making and Storing Quality Hay. University of Missouri Extension website. http://extension.missouri.edu/p/ G4575. Reviewed October 1993. Accessed March 29, 2017.

Undersander D. Hay in a Day. Harvesting Technologies for Quality and Yield [presentation]. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Morrison J. Time to Fertilize Alfalfa Ground. Illinois Livestock Trail. University of Illinois Extension website. http://livestocktrail.illinois. edu/pasturenet/paperDisplay. cfm?ContentID=7436. Published June 6, 2005. Accessed March 29, 2017.

THEREâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME FOR EFFICIENCY. Case IH hay equipment is designed to harvest every acre for peak nutritional value. And now, you can get more efficiency than ever before with these special offers. Talk to your dealer or visit www.caseih.com/springsalesevent for details.

500

GIFT CARD

WITH THE PURCHASE OF A NEW CASE IH MOWER CONDITIONER.1

FREE ROLLS OF NET WRAP

WITH THE PURCHASE OF A NEW CASE IH ROUND BALER RB5 OR RB4 SERIES.2

Receive a $500 USD Case IH Reward Card on a new Case IH mower conditioner purchase made January 1, 2017, through June 30, 2017. Case IH Reward Cards will be mailed to qualifying customers within 90 days after the offer end date, which is June 30, 2017. Case IH Reward Cards may only be used to purchase eligible CNH Industrial parts and related services and products at participating Case IH dealerships that accept the CNH Industrial Capital Productivity Plus Account. Case IH Reward Cards are not refundable for cash, are not transferable, and will not be replaced if lost, stolen or destroyed. Case IH Reward Cards may not be used toward prior purchases and may not be used to make any payments on existing debts or account balances. Program subject to change or cancellation without notice. 2 Promotion runs January 1, 2017, through June 30, 2017. Offer available while supplies last. The two rolls of free Case IH net wrap will be given to customers upon purchase of a new Case IH round baler. Substitutions may be made at Case IH discretion. The promotion is not redeemable on prior purchases. Program subject to change or cancellation without notice. 3 For commercial use only. Customer participation subject to credit qualification and approval by CNH Industrial Capital America LLC or CNH Industrial Capital Canada Ltd. See your participating Case IH dealer for details and eligibility requirements. Down payment may be required. Offer valid through May 31, 2017. Not all customers or applicants may qualify for this rate or term. CNH Industrial Capital America LLC or CNH Industrial Capital Canada Ltd. standard terms and conditions will apply. Taxes, freight, setup, delivery, additional options or attachments not included in price. Program subject to change or cancellation without notice. ÂŠ2017 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.

% FINANCING FOR 72 MONTHS

 sustaina b i l i ty

By Charlie Gracey

Musings on how much cattle eat and drink

onventional wisdom holds that beef cattle are wasteful users of grain and in direct competition with humans for finite supplies of food grains and water. Thus the large acreages devoted to feed grains might better be deployed in the production of crops directly consumable by humans. This observation may appear logical on the surface but, as with so many easy assumptions, it requires closer examination. Recently food scientist Sylvain Charlebois of Dalhousie University commented that cattle require “more than 10 pounds of feed and eight gallons of water to produce one pound of edible beef.” The inference most readers would draw from his comment would be that this placed the beef animal in direct competition with humans for a supposedly limited supply of food grains and water. The debate about the role of beef in our diet should begin with the facts. So I would offer a more realistic picture of how the bovine, with its marvellous ruminant digestive system, greatly increases and enhances the human food supply by converting plants indigestible by humans into high-quality protein foods from land entirely unsuitable for any purpose other than grazing. Grain Consumption

Let us begin with some basic “factual” information on grain consumption by beef cattle. The general public often doesn’t realize that the cow herself spends her entire life eating grass or stored forage in winter, although she may receive small amounts of grain as a growing heifer. Her calf is weaned at about 40 per cent of its mature weight on a diet of mother’s milk and grazing. Whether they enter the feedlot as weaned calves, yearling or short keeps, it is fair to say an “average” animal goes on feed at about 55 per cent of its final mature weight having consumed mainly pastures, stored hay and silages, and little or no grain. In a feedlot its ration consists of a mixture of forages or silages and a grain ration consisting of corn or barley with a small amount of protein supplement. Based on Trends data

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

from Canfax, I calculate cattle in the feedlot consume, on average, 7.2 pounds of grain per pound of live weight gain. If this grain is applied to the final weight of the animal, as it should be, grain consumption works out to 3.3 pounds of grain per pound of final live weight. This ratio of usage is expressed in terms of live weight and must next be converted to actual boneless beef. An average beef

carcass weighs 60 per cent of the live animal weight but the amount of boneless beef in a carcass averages 42.6 per cent of the live animal weight. The rest is not wasted, tighten your belt or look at your shoes… I’ll leave it there. So, if it took 3.3 pounds of grain to produce one pound of live weight gain, that converts to 7.7 pounds to produce one pound of boneless beef.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

sustainability

Even though this is well below the “more than 10 pounds” commonly mentioned, it’s not the whole story. Annually 16 per cent of the total beef supply is produced from culled cows and bulls that consume negligible amounts of grain, aside from that consumed by dairy cows to support milk production. Therefore our figure of 7.7 pounds applies to only 84 per cent of the boneless beef when spread over total annual production, so the correct figure for grain usage by the beef sector is about 6.5 pounds of grain to produce one pound of boneless retail beef. That indeed is a far lower ratio than is commonly used to describe grain consumption in beef production.

duction and, as I have shown, in almost exactly double the amount claimed. But so what? Water, especially water used in agriculture is the ultimate renewable resource and every drop of it is returned to nature to be used again and again. All of the water used to produce that pound of beef, except the moisture content of the beef itself, was back in nature before the animal was marketed. Not one drop was destroyed or wasted. Water usage in beef production

becomes an issue only where it is scarce and is needed for other more urgent purposes and that is not a problem in any of the beefproducing regions of Canada. With the math explained we can move on to the main question. Does the production of feed grain for livestock compete with food grain production in Canada? The approximate total annual grain and Continued on page 12

Water usage

What about the allegedly high water use in beef production? Drinking water requirements for cattle vary from a low of about 20 to a high of 65 litres per day depending on the type of cattle and the temperature. Recognizing this variability, a generous overall average daily consumption of 45 litres per day for a steer or a heifer means that at an average slaughter age of 18 months the animal has consumed 25,000 litres of water. The mother cow, meanwhile, would have consumed an additional 18,000 litres, which I will round up to 20,000 litres to accommodate the sire. Recall that the sire is sire to approximately 20 offspring per year so his water consumption can be spread over that number of offspring. So the water requirements to produce a finished steer or heifer totals roughly 45,000 litres. The output is a steer or heifer carcass weighing approximately 380 kg. (I am ignoring the fact that the culled cow and bull also contribute to the beef supply). So that means that 45,000 litres of water were consumed in the production of a 380-kg carcass. That works out to about 118 litres of water per kg of carcass weight or 162 litres per kg of boneless beef. So it is apparent the claim that eight gallons of water is needed to produce one pound of beef (equates to 80 litres per kg of edible beef) is a considerable underestimation. Probably the lower estimate of 80 litres referred only to water consumption in the feedlot and did not include the water consumed by the animal before it arrived in feedlot or the water consumed by the dam and sire. But what does this mean? Certainly a large volume of water is used in beef pro-

INNOVATION FILE:

Providing Pain Relief at the Time of Castration

“Our branding results were amazing.” “Because we didn’t have to spend two days mothering up and making sure everything was up and going, right there it paid for itself. It kind of makes sense if you’re reducing stress that they’re going to give something back to you. Our weights are definitely up at weaning, so that could have been a factor there.”

Meloxicam Oral Solution provides at least 56 hours of pain relief for the humane treatment of calves at the time of castration.

Giles Ranch – Sue and Jason Giles (pictured), Del, Jean, M urry and Kerri.

For more information on pain prevention, contact your veterinarian or visit solvet.ca Solvet is a subsidiary of Alberta Veterinary Laboratories Ltd.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7 5924 Meloxicam Testimonial-Ad-Giles-CCM-FINAL.indd 1 Client: Solvet/AVL Project: Testimonial Ad

Publication: Cdn Cattlemen Size: 4.58” x 7.5”

2017-03-09 4:45 PM Agency: ON Communication Inc Agency Contact: Raellen Seaman

susta i na b i l i ty

Continued from page 11

oilseed production in Canada presently is 75 million tonnes. Coarse grains production, which includes feed grains, contributes roughly one-third of that supply. About half of the coarse grain supply is used for industrial purposes, such as malting, and the other half, about 14 million tonnes, is used as feed grains for cattle, hogs, poultry and all the minor livestock species. Currently, the prices of all grains are somewhat depressed and would be even lower were it not for the demand for feed grain exerted by the livestock sector. In addition to consuming feed grains, livestock are the only outlet for the significant but variable quantities of weather-damaged food grains. Without the livestock industry these off-grade food grains would be wasted. So if one looks at the situation in a balanced way, one can see that by utilizing forage crops, pastures and a modest amount of feed grain, beef cattle provide high-quality, protein dense beef to augment the human food supply. It is true that they consume quantities of feed grains

during the feedlot stage but much less than is commonly supposed. As well, they make beneficial use of lower-quality or spoiled food grains and other crop residues that have no other use or value. It is possible to finish cattle solely on forages but it takes longer, and would take up much of the land currently devoted to feed grain production, with little if any reduction in cost. The grain portion makes up only about 23 per cent of total cost of production in the feedlot. So should beef production be reduced in an effort to increase the global food supply? Far from improving either the quantity or the nutritional quality of the human food supply, this would result in a lower supply of high-quality protein and a sharp reduction in the total supply of human food. To understand this apparently illogical observation one has only to recognize that vast areas of land on every continent are unsuited to the intensive cultivation necessary to produce food grains, fruit and vegetables. Even better farming land benefits from crop rotations with forages

and applications of livestock manure to improve soil tilth and fertility. So, to reduce or eliminate beef production would mean that the large acreages of land that are suitable only for grazing could no longer make any contribution to the human food supply. Of the 160 million acres of agricultural land in Canada, 50 million acres are described as pasture land, meaning tame and natural pasture land. An additional 17 million acres are devoted to tame hay. It might be prudent to recall the devastation visited upon vast areas in Canada and the United States during the Dirty Thirties when millions of acres of fragile soil were put to the plow in response to temporarily high wheat prices. The lesson learned then that some land should remain in grass should not be so quickly forgotten. Humanity has centuries of experience with balancing livestock and crop production and only very recent and localized experience with agriculture without livestock. c Charlie Gracey is a beef industry analyst living in Ontario. More detail on this topic is available on his website www.charliegracey.com.

Grow informed.

With the new web series: AGGronomyTV

AgCanada.com is proud to present this new informative web video series. AGGronomyTV is a series of videos that covers today’s top issues related to soil management and crop production. Video topics include: New Seeding Technology Tire Performance  4R Stewardship  Growing Soybeans  

Crop Suitability for NW Saskatchewan  Plus more… 

Sponsored by

Scan the code or visit the website for more information

www.agcanada.com/aggronomytv 12

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

ď ľ Nutritio n

By John McKinnon

Variety Does Matter When Growing Barley for Silage!

hen growing silage, particularly barley silage, most producers select varieties with proven agronomic traits such as yield, disease and lodging resistance. In contrast, relatively little information is available on the nutritional value of the numerous barley varieties that are available for seeding. Recently a joint research project was run at the University of Saskatchewan and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada at Lethbridge to specifically evaluate the nutritional quality of common barley varieties grown by beef and dairy producers in Western Canada. The project was funded by the National Beef Cattle Research Council, Saskatchewan Agriculture Development Fund, the Saskatchewan Cattlemanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Association and the National Science and Engineering Research Council and involved two graduate students, Jayakrishnain Nair and Natalie Preston. As many producers will soon be deciding on a barley variety for growing silage, the results of this project may help with the selection process. First a bit of background on the project. In phase one, barley silage samples, along with detailed agronomic characteristics, were collected from multiple commercial operations by co-operating consulting nutritionists. In total, 80 samples representing seven varieties harvested at the mid-dough stage of maturity (Conlon, CDC Copeland, CDC Cowboy, Falcon, Legacy, AC Metcalfe and Xena) were collected over two years and sent away for detailed chemical analysis. A companion sample was kept at the University of Saskatchewan for evaluation of fibre content and digestibility. Based on the results of phase one, three varieties (CDC Copeland, CDC Cowboy and Xena) were chosen for growing silage for backgrounding and finishing trials involving sheep and cattle at the two research stations. For the purposes of this article, of the numerous nutritional traits examined, I will focus on crude protein, starch and fibre content, and fibre digestibility. With respect to protein, there was a two per cent difference between the variety with the highest crude protein content (AC Metcalfe, 12.5 per cent) and that with the lowest (Xena, 10.2 per cent). Crude protein is an important and costly nutrient to supply to all classes of cattle. Selecting varieties with higher crude protein content will reduce supplementation costs, particularly in backgrounding and finishing operations where cattle have higher protein requirements than mature beef cows. In addition to crude protein, energy content should also be a primary consideration when selecting barley varieties for silage. Energy content is often calculated as total digestible nutrients (TDN) which, in turn, is a summation of digestible protein, fibre, lipid and non-fibre carbohydrate components of a feedstuff. With respect

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

to silage, two important components of this calculation which tend to have opposing effects are the starch and fibre content. Starch content is a positive indicator of energy content of the silage with values above 20 per cent representing excellent quality silage. In this study, the starch content ranged from a low of 14.5 per cent in CDC Cowboy to a high of 24.7 per cent with Legacy. CDC Copeland, Colon, Falcon and Xena also had starch values of at least 20 per cent. In contrast, high fibre levels, i.e. acid (ADF) and neutral (NDF) detergent fibre content, indicates silage with lower digestibility and energy content. As well, in the case of NDF, high levels can lead to a filling effect in the rumen, limiting dry matter intake. In this study, CDC Cowboy had the highest ADF (30.2 per cent) and NDF (48.6 per cent) content while Colon had the lowest (26.1 and 41.9 per cent, respectively) with other varieties intermediate. As a result CDC Cowboy had the lowest (63.6 per cent) while Colon had the highest (67.4 per cent) TDN content of the seven varieties examined. One of the key nutritional aspects that we looked at was NDF digestibility. This is not a common feed test and you might wonder why we were interested in this trait. First, the NDF content of a given forage can range from 40 to 70 per cent of the dry matter and thus represents a considerable proportion of the feed. Second, the digestibility of the NDF fraction will influence its contribution to energy content of the forage and will also influence the extent to which an animal can consume the feed. A forage with a high NDF content that is poorly digested will limit dry matter intake. In this study, of the seven varieties examined, CDC Cowboy had the highest NDF digestibility while varieties such as Xena and Legacy had the poorest NDF digestibility. Phase two of the research was designed to look at the effect of selected varieties (CDC Cowboy, Xena and CDC Copeland) on the performance of growing and finishing calves. In particular, we were interested in determining if the higher NDF digestibility of CDC Cowboy would overcome the low starch and high NDF content of this variety. As in the commercial trial, CDC Cowboy had higher fibre levels than either Xena or CDC Copeland and lower starch levels, while crude protein levels were similar across varieties. When fed as part of backgrounding diets, calves fed CDC Cowboy had lower dry matter intakes and poorer gains that those fed Xena or CDC Copeland. Calves fed Xena were the most efficient at converting feed to gain. These results show that barley varieties grown for silage do differ in important nutritional traits such as protein, starch and fibre content and that selecting varieties just for agronomic traits may not result in optimum silage quality or animal performance. c

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

C a t t l e m e n Âˇ MAY 2 0 1 7

 parasites

By Debbie Furber

Six Ways to Keep Your Wormer Working

esistance among internal parasites to broad-spectrum cattle wormers is emerging in Canada and experience in other countries leaves no reason to believe the problem won’t worsen. On the brighter side, producers here still have a fighting chance to retain the efficacy of available cattle wormers by combining parasite control strategies, says epidemiologist Dr. Fabienne Uehlinger at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon. “You may not know your wormer isn’t working, so maybe you are throwing your money out the window,” says Uehlinger while urging producers to discuss deworming strategies this spring with their veterinarians. Dr. John Gilleard at the University of Calgary led the initial research into the extent of parasite resistance which found evidence of treatment failure in most of 54 herds sampled from British Columbia to Quebec. All the herds had internal parasites, with roundworm the most significant, and the majority had worm burdens high enough to affect production. Even eight to 24 parasite eggs per gram of feces, which is considered a low burden, will reduce feed intake leading to lower milk production and average daily gain. Resistance is measured by counting the number of parasite eggs in fecal samples taken before and 14 days after treatment. A treatment should reduce the egg count by 95 per cent. Anything less indicates resistance to the product. Resistance is a genetic trait passed from generation to generation, evolving faster the more times we expose the organism to an active ingredient until, eventually, there is no point of return. “Producers won’t see clinical evidence of resistance until the level is so high that there is no going back,” says Uehlinger. Adding a sense of urgency to the discussion is the fact that there are no new active ingredients in the wormer pipeline. Even if there were it would not be a safe way out of this bind because resistance is likely to develop quickly.

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

Sheep producers in Europe and Australia found that out recently when they saw resistance appear within a year in some flocks to a new product. “Reliance on chemical wormers is most likely becoming unreliable unless we try to change how we are using them,” Uehlinger predicts.

“ Reliance on chemical wormers is most likely becoming unreliable unless we try to change how we are using them.” Dr. Fabienne Uehlinger Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon

1. Monitor parasite burdens

Monitoring at the farm level is a challenge because most times you can’t gauge a parasite burden just by looking at an animal. Telltale signs of a heavy infection, such as runty animals and diarrhea, might be obvious in young animals, but the effects are usually subclinical. The only sure way is to collect fecal samples for an egg count before and after deworming. Veterinary diagnostic labs and many veterinary clinics offer this service; however, it is impractical to run egg-counts on every animal. For herd-level estimates, Uehlinger suggests taking samples from 15 to 20 cows that can be properly pooled at the lab to produce one representative sample. The problem she runs into when making this standard recommendation is that pooledsample testing doesn’t yet seem to be readily available in Canada. She and Prairie Diagnostic Services at Saskatoon are working on a way to offer an affordable, meaningful, pooled-sample testing service for ruminant livestock producers. She encourages producers to ask their vets about approaches for herd-level testing. It’s generally believed approximately 30 per cent of cattle in a herd shed about 70 per cent of the eggs. Strategic testing at high-risk times of the year (spring for mature cattle, fall for calves) would target heavily infected animals or groups of animals for treatment, thereby reducing the amount of wormer needed and the number of cattle (parasites) exposed to the active ingredient. 2. Treat at the most effective times

“We need to be prepared by gaining a bit more information about what’s really happening in Canada to benchmark the parasite burden and wormer resistance.” While Uehlinger acknowledges no single solution will be feasible for everyone across all regions and types of operations, she does offer six steps that individual producers can take to hold off resistance and keep their dewormers working.

Keep in mind the biggest risk factor for new intestinal worm infections is having cattle on pasture. The main reason we deworm cows is to minimize the risk to calves should spring pastures be contaminated with larvae that survive the winter. That makes spring a strategic time to deworm cows. Ideally, this is about six weeks after turnout, or four to six weeks after cows that graze year-round are con-

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

parasites

sistently eating fresh grass. That gives enough time for the cows to consume over-wintering larvae, but before they become egg-laying adults. Fall is still the best time to deworm calves. Research shows parasite burdens increase in calves over the summer and peak in fall. In a feedlot, deworm at entry because parasites reduce weight gains. Once in the feedlot, calves won’t transmit or pick up significant infections over winter because a feedlot doesn’t support the worms’ life cycle. Parasite resistance to wormers is only a problem insofar as the potential production losses when cattle arrive with resistant parasites. To maximize gain on yearlings during the grazing season, combine aggressive deworming to start with intensive pasture management and regular monitoring of fecal egg counts.

5. Give the correct dose by weight

6. Think biosecurity

Under-dosing is a significant risk factor for resistance because exposure to low doses of a wormer (pour-on, oral and injectable) may allow susceptible parasites to survive and acquire resistance. If a scale isn’t handy, Uehlinger suggests using a weight tape that goes around the girth (smallest diameter behind the shoulder blades). The measurement in inches corresponds with a weight in pounds.

Regardless of the source, new cattle need to be isolated, assessed and dewormed, if necessary, before they hit the grass. In the event that they are carrying resistant parasites, they should be grazed on pastures that are likely contaminated, or grazed with the other cattle. The contaminated pasture and other cattle will be hosts to refugia (susceptible parasites) and dilute the gene pool of resistant parasites. c

3. Refugia

Creating refugia, a refuge for susceptible parasites, is a proven pest-control strategy. It has the effect of diluting the population of resistant parasites, thereby preserving a wormer’s effectiveness for longer than when the whole herd is treated. One suggestion is to leave 10 to 20 per cent of the herd untreated each year. Select the healthiest looking cows because they are most probably parasite free, or carrying a low burden. 4. Manage pastures

Ninety per cent of larvae develop on the lowest four inches of grass, so moving cattle to a fresh pasture before they start grazing this older growth is an effective way to limit exposure to infective larvae. Larvae that aren’t consumed by cattle eventually die without perpetuating the population, resistant or not. Unfortunately, rotational grazing alone isn’t enough. To reduce the risk of infection, cattle should be moved after seven to 10 days and not return to that same spot for many months, preferably a full year. Making the call as to when a pasture might be clean is difficult because the length of time it takes for infective larvae to die on pasture is highly variable, depending on the weather, and no two years are alike. Another approach is to reserve the cleaner pastures for young stock as they are much more susceptible to parasite infections than mature cattle. www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Doesn’t take breaks oR call in sick:

Your New Fencing Crew

Wheatheart offers a complete line of heavy-duty and hard hitting post pounders designed to make fencing jobs safer, faster and more efficient. Available in 3 point hitch mount, versatile trailer models and skid steer mount with optional pilot auger attachment. Contact your local Wheatheart Post Pounder dealer today!

877.667.7421 | wheatheart.com

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

 identifi cat i o n

By Debbie Furber

 wo r l d c lass

Our RFID test lab

Glen Kathler holds SAIT’s applied research chair in RFID application development.

A Decade of RFID

everal projects of interest to the beef industry are in progress at the Centre for Innovative Information Technology Solutions, a.k.a. the RADLab at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) in Calgary, as it rounds out its 10th year of researching advanced RFID applications for livestock. The world-class SAIT RFID test lab is now in full swing gathering clients and new business. A unique combination UHF (ultrahigh frequency) RFID-DNA tag for management purposes has progressed to the fieldtesting stage, and anticipation was building for the first RFID drone test flight to launch sometime near the end of April.

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

The UHF-DNA tag project got underway in 2015 and some of the resulting tags designed and manufactured by lead researcher Sherry Yang and her team were applied to heifers at CL Ranches west of the city. The remainder will be tested at other ranches over the next year and a half. When a UHF-DNA tag is applied, a small punch of ear tissue is taken to match an animal’s DNA to its RFID number. The tag is made from a basic thermal polyurethane material that has been treated with chemicals to make it more flexible and durable when exposed to cold and ultraviolet light. Glen Kathler, the applied research chair in

SAIT’s RFID test lab is one of only three in the world accredited to perform official standardized electronic tests for RFID tags. Revamping the lab’s equipment started in 2013 with a $475,000 grant from Alberta. By 2015 it was accredited by the International Standard Organization (ISO), and the International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR) in 2016 . “At first we were focusing on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) framework requirements, but then decided to build an ISO/ICAR accredited lab so manufacturers would have a one-stop shop for Canadian testing,” says Bob Davies, the test lab’s quality manager and lead developer. ICAR is the global registration authority for animal traceability equipment. All livestock RFID tags must meet ICAR standards before the CFIA will approve them for traceability in Canada. Once a tag passes the standard electronic tests for reading range, transmission frequency and accuracy, the durability and electronic performance of the tags are tested at -35 C as required by CFIA. Full conformance testing of 50 transponders is required when manufacturers apply for a new ICAR registration on a tag, an integrated circuit or new technology. Limited testing is done when approved transponder coils and integrated circuits are added. “The logical and most likely next step to expand our scope is testing transceivers that read the tags and also adding some mechanical testing capabilities like abrasion, shock, impact and accelerated ultraviolet aging to simulate degradation of the tag package under sunlight,” Davies says. To maintain its ISO accreditation, the lab is audited every two years but the accuracy of its results are monitored continously by ICAR. Davies now sits on an expert subcommittee that reviews ISO proposals for testing standards.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

identification

RFID application development, says there are upwards of 50 chemical combinations with differing properties to choose from, so part of this project’s mandate is to find out if they chose the right mix. Their initial UHF tags designed in cooperation with the beef industry, resulted in two popsicle-stick models and one hoop along with a reader to capture the data. Cattle at co-operating ranches and feedlots were tagged with these initial products in 2011. This project earned Kathler the 2015 Alberta Science and Technology Award for innovation in agriculture, but in practical terms, UHF tags still remain on the workbench when it comes to traceability. “The popsicle-stick form factor still exists, but we are not the manufacturer of commercial tags,” explains Kathler.“If a manufacturer wanted to consider our design, that would be great.” The reality is low-frequency (LF) RFID technology introduced about 35 years ago, remains the most mature and widely accepted solution for animal traceability across the globe. No country to date has adopted UHF technology for traceability in beef cattle, although three styles of UHF tags have been approved for cattle and are being used for management purposes in the U.S. “All of the large tag manufacturers have UHF tags ready to go to market once a global numbering system is approved so that they know how to program the tags at the factory,” Kathler adds. Creating a numbering system for UHFRFID tags is easier said than done. For one thing it must meet all international RFID requirements and be compatible with manufacturing processes for low frequency tags. This work is already underway by a team of international experts set up under the International Standards Organization (ISO) that is looking into potential numbering schemes for ISO countries. Kathler, Guillaume Parenteau, CEO of Quebec high-tech firm PLURITAG, and Canadian Cattle Identification Agency tag and technology manager Paul Laronde are members. In the meantime Kathler can see commercial opportunities for UHF tags in the cattle sector. In feedlots, for example, every animal receives a new dangle tag at entry linked to its national RFID number in the feedlot’s database. If the dangle tag has a UHF transmitter, it would allow for automated reading of these animals at sorting and loading. www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Range cattle carrying UHF tags could be scanned by drones passing overhead so you could track your herd in the most remote of locations. This is the essence of a threeyear UHF-UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) project that Kathler is working on in collaboration with Dr. John Church’s team at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, B.C., and Jeff Braisher of Kingsclere Ranch near Golden, B.C., where a UHF tag reader will take flight this spring thanks to an Idea-

to-Innovation grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. One of the advantages to UHF technology is that it can read up to 500 tags a second making it very adaptable to managing large groups of cattle whereas low-frequency tech operates off a magnetic field and is more suited to reading tags one at a time. Another plus is the small size of the wire antenna needed to pick up the signal, which allows for almost endless design possibilities for UHF transmitters. c

“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 product label. 3. See ZACTRAN MSDS. ZACTRAN ® is a registered trademark of Merial Limited. Merial is now part of Boehringer Ingelheim © 2017 Merial Canada Inc. All rights reserved. ZACT-17-7577- AD-COW/CALF-E

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

 COVER • m a nag e m e n t

By Dave Solverson

We need more heifers C anada’s national cow herd has con tracted over 20 per cent since it peaked at five million head in 2005. If the national cow herd remains under four million cows, or contracts further, the industry risks losing infrastructure, pro cessing capacity, more feedlots, and cattlerelated services such as auction markets, trucking companies and even local dealers of livestock handling and forage harvest ing equipment.

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

For the beef industry to expand we would, of course, also need to expand and diversify our exports. If we had a larger, more reli able supply, we could be more competitive in international markets. Throughout my travels with trade missions I would often hear from importers in places like Japan, South Korea, and Europe, that they love Canadian beef, but couldn’t find a consis tent supply. I don’t believe we will see any significant

expansion from farmers who exited the industry but now want to get back into cows. The producers who have remained in the industry are serious cattle people, and that is where any expansion will come from. But it may require a different approach to achieve expansion. At our family ranch in central Alberta, we greatly increased our cow herd by breeding more heifers and making our herd-replace ment decisions after they calved. Instead of

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

management

growing out 30 to 40 per cent of the heifers, we now expose about 85 per cent of them. A short 45-day breeding period and preg checking weeds out some infertility. After the heifers calve, but definitely before grass time, we make our decisions about longterm replacements. If any heifer does not make the grade as a top-notch cow, we place her and her calf in a group which will go on a high-energy, barley-based ration for about four months. It is important to get them on feed shortly after they calve at two years and get them shipped just before they reach 30 months. Our experience has been that the majority of these females grade AA, but about 30 per cent grade AAA. Their dressing percentage is lower than a conventional, dry heifer, but the extra calves that wean add a lot to the bottom line. In my view, the real bonus to this management system is the quality of heifers that make the cut to the herd. If we are disciplined in our selection after the first calf in terms of udders, feet, temperament, ability to maintain body condition, and ease of calving, we can expect second-calf and older females to be very trouble free. Too often in the past, we were hesitant to cull young cows after they weaned a calf because they were now over 30 months and were lighter than the mature cows. We are no longer guessing whether those one-year-olds are going to make a good cow. I realize many producers feel intimidated about calving out a large number of heifers, but in our experience calving after the equinox, when the days are mostly warmer and longer, helps a lot. It’s not much different checking 150 instead of 40 or 50.

Our Canadian seedstock industry has made great improvements in providing bloodlines in every beef breed for calving ease while still growing well.

he tag means she’s the T 192nd calf of 2017 from the 144th heifer of 2015. The check mark means she will likely stay in the herd

Our local vet clinics report C-sections and hard pulls have been reduced to a few dozen per year compared to hundreds during our expansion in the ’80s and ’90s. I also think there is an opportunity for a heifer development segment in our indus-

try — specialists who would accept heifer calves, grow them, breed them, calve them out and sort them into replacement pairs or feeding pairs. The grain-fed pairs stay much healthier when they are fed in a portable feeder on a small pasture than in a feedlot pen, especially during a wet summer. It doesn’t take acres to provide some comfort. Neighbouring producers could pool their feeding pairs to make a larger group, but even on a smaller scale, it is important to get them on feed and shipped under 30 months. For many operations, switching to retaining more heifers would present cash-flow problems. This is one instance where the Government of Canada’s cash advance program that offers $100,000 interest free, and $300,000 at a good rate, would work well in the transition years. This program has been underutilized to date, at least in Western Canada. Another option is to offer some pairs for sale after your selections for the cow herd are made. We have found our culling rate on three- to seven-year-old cows has gone down and we can sell good pairs as breeders now. With extra young cows around established producers could also help young cattlemen grow their herds, either with terms like lease to own, or payments over time. Let’s all breed more heifers, and grow this industry from within. c Dave Solverson is a past president of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. With his brother Ken and daughter Joanne they operate Woodwind Ranch, near Camrose, Alta. He can be reached at 780-679-9625 or woodwind@xplornet.com.

W BLE NOILA A AV

Members get more!

Glacier FarmMedia is Canada’s largest agricultural publisher, producing more than 20 print and electronic titles that include many of the most trusted names in Canadian agriculture. When you sign up for a Glacier FarmMedia Member Account — you get free news, markets, weather, and equipment listings — in customizable dashboards and personalized newsletters — on your mobile, tablet, or desktop.

Go to www.membersgetmore.ca to sign-up today - It’s free! www.canadiancattlemen.ca

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

 researc h o n t h e r eco r d

By Reynold Bergen

Making Dollars out of Sense

side from price insurance (in provinces where it is available), cow-calf producers can’t do much to control the price they receive for their calves, so managing input costs is often the biggest opportunity to improve profitability. The Western Beef Development Center has found that annual production costs differ by at least $100 per cow between the 25 per cent lowest-cost producers and the average producer. A 2015 Quebec report found a $79 per cow per year difference between a group of cow-calf operations with the highest margin and the average. In P.E.I., annual cost of production between the 10 per cent highest- and lowest-cost operations differed by $660 per cow. During BSE, drastic times called for drastic measures, and input costs were often cut as much as possible. But this may not be the best strategy for today’s more normal conditions. If it’s not done carefully, reducing inputs can harm profitability. Feed is responsible for the biggest costs, including land, fuel, seed, and fertilizer to establish, grow, manage and graze or harvest pasture or winter feed. Investments to increase forage and feed yield and/or quality, through appropriate pasture management (e.g. intensive or rotational grazing), agronomy (e.g. crop and variety selection, seeding dates, fertilization, weed control practices and harvest dates) can help reduce land base requirements by greatly increasing carrying capacity. Growing more forage per acre means that fewer acres are needed for each cow, or that more cow-calf pairs can be raised on the same land base. Using feed and forage resources as efficiently as possible through extended grazing (where appropriate), feed testing and appropriate supplementation are other examples where increased costs in one area are offset by lower overall costs. Feed requirements are higher in extended grazing systems, partly because cows need more feed when wintered on pasture than when they are fed in confinement, but overall cost per cow per day ends up lower in many cases due to labour, equipment and fuel savings. But even here, feed cost savings with poorly managed extended winter grazing can result in lower overall profitability if the cow’s nutritional requirements are not met. Reducing feed costs needs to be balanced with ensuring that the cow still receives the nutrition she needs to get through the winter in good body condition, give birth to a live, healthy calf, provide it with highquality colostrum, and wean it at an acceptable weight, all while rebreeding within 60 days of calving to maintain a 365-day calving interval. If standing forage, swath or bale quality is lower than assumed and cows lose body condition during the winter, they may enter the calving season in thin condition, have more trouble calving,

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

rebreed later, and wean lighter calves next year. This is a particular concern with first-calf heifers and young cows that are still growing while they are pregnant and raising their calves, so their nutritional requirements are particularly high. Failing to meet the cows’ nutritional requirements will greatly increase the risk that they will rebreed late or not at all, and increase the chances that they will be culled long before the calves they weaned have covered their purchase or development costs. Spending money on a feed test, and using that information to appropriately supplement protein, energy and minerals will help avoid that risk. On top of this, there are genetic differences between animals; some cows can winter on less feed than others while still maintaining body condition and rebreeding successfully. Sometimes these may be smaller cows that wean smaller calves that may be discounted in the marketplace. But there are some cattle that really do digest and metabolize their feed more efficiently than others. This means that two cows of the same breed and size may maintain their body weight and condition equally well, and raise and wean similarly sized calves year after year, but with one needing considerably more feed per year than the other. In time, genetic tools may become refined enough to accurately identify these differences in commercial cows. You can hear more about this at the Bov-Innovation session at the 2017 Canadian Beef Industry Conference in Calgary (August 15-17). Bov-Innovation will again feature talks from researchers, paired with beef producers, presenting some basics as well as the latest science-based recommendations and practical production tips on a range of topics. Presenters will include Matt Spangler (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) speaking about genomic selection tools for commercial herds. John McKinnon (University of Saskatchewan) will talk about economical ways to deal with mycotoxin-contaminated feed grain. The Western Beef Development Centre’s Kathy Larson will discuss economic considerations when selecting replacement heifers alongside a speaker (to be announced) who will talk about the critical animal health and nutritional management considerations essential to achieving a 365-day calving interval. We hope to see you there! The Beef Research Cluster is funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off 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

CSA_Cattleman#2_2017.indd 1

07/04/2017 8:48:37 AM

 HEALTH

Calves from vaccinated dams did better in the feedlot

Dr. Tye Perrett, Feedlot Health Management Services.

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

By Debbie Furber

uniquely Canadian study provides the first comprehensive look at feedlot health outcomes for calves from dams vaccinated before conception with Express FP. Dr. Tye Perrett, a managing partner with Feedlot Health Management Services, Okotoks, Alta., oversaw the project that reviewed Canadian feedlot records on 1.4 million calves born between 2007 and 2014 to compare health outcomes of Express-Verified (EV) calves to those of non-EV calves with similar health-risk profiles. Express-Verified calves were those born to cows and heifers vaccinated before breeding with one of the eligible Express FP products given according to label directions. Veterinarians provide a certificate of purchase to producers, who then Express-verify the calves by entering the certificate number when age verifying the calves in the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency’s (CCIA) age-verification database. Express FP vaccines protect against respiratory and reproductive viral diseases, the main ones being BVD types 1 and 2, IBR, PI3 and BRSV. Most importantly from a calf-health perspective, the vaccines protect the fetus from internalizing the BVD virus and being born a persistently infected (PI) animal that spreads prolific amounts of the virus for as long as it lives. The company’s Express-Verified BVD PI guarantee still stands in Canada. It will pay fair-market value plus the cost of testing for any BVD PI from a dam properly vaccinated with one of the appropriate Express FP products. The guarantee is transferable to a new owner because of the program’s tracking feature with the tie to individual animal radio-frequency identification (RFID) numbers. Feedlot Health’s third-party review was conducted for Boehringer Ingelheim to dig for answers to questions often asked by feedlot operators. They wonder whether EV calves on the whole actually do better than calves with unknown mother-cow vaccination histories and, if so, could those non-EV calves cancel out the EV health advantage when the calves are penned together. “We are the only company that has the ability to do this type of research and it is because of the CCIA age-verification database, Feedlot Health Management Services’ extensive database, and our Express-Verified program that gives us the ability to follow calves through to the feedlot,” says Boehringer Ingelheim Canada sales manager Lee Irvine at Red Deer, Alta. Boehringer Ingelheim provided the RFID tag numbers for all EV calves in its database to cross reference with Feedlot Health’s database. Perrett explains that the Feedlot Health database is a proprietary software program for collecting health and management data on individual animals to help feedlot clients manage animal health. Algorithms based on several risk factors for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) complex automatically assign a BRDrisk category at the time animals enter a feedlot. Feedlot Health’s protocols for health management are then connected to these risk categories.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

HEALTH

The accompanying table (with bolded P values highlighting significant differences) indicates that EV calves at high risk for BRD had consistently lower pull rates (sickness), lower death loss from all causes, and lower death loss from BRD than nonEV calves in the same pen and than nonEV calves in pens without EV calves. Express-Verified calves at low risk for BRD were less likely to get sick and less likely to die from BRD or any other cause than non-EV calves in pens without EV calves. There were no detectable animal-health improvements in EV calves at medium risk for BRD compared to the other groups. Perrett says this could be because of greater variation in individual health risk within this category that either nullifies or makes it difficult to detect potential differences in animal-health outcomes. The bottom line is that even though 90 per cent of the pens with EV calves had less than four per cent EV calves in the group, there were improved animal-health outcomes for the high-risk EV calves as well as their non-EV pen mates.

Risk category

Express Verified (EV)

Non-EV in same pen with EV calves

Non-EV in pen with no EV calves

P value

Overall individual calf pull rate (for undifferentiated fever and no-fever) <0.001

Low risk

0.79%

1 .12%

1.62%

Medium risk

3.30%

1.80%

1.79%

0.767

High risk

4.73%

7.28%

7.24%

<0.001

Low risk

1.05%

1.32%

0.002

Medium risk

1.59%

1.39%

1.37%

0.788

High risk

1.78%

2.55%

2.63%

0.009

Overall individual mortality from all causes 1.00%

Overall individual mortality from bovine respiratory disease Low risk

0.10%

0.17%

0.36%

0.001

Medium risk

0.33%

0.22%

0.762

High risk

0.10%

0.66%

0.72%

<0.001

“From first principles, a breedingherd vaccination program should result in healthier calves at the feedlot, but in the course of commercial trade, calves are transported and commingled with other calves of unknown breeding-herd vaccination status at the auction and/or feedlot, which can make it very difficult to observe any effect of breeding-herd

vaccination on health outcomes at the feedlot, Perrett explains. “To our knowledge, this retrospective analysis is the first to quantify statistically significant differences in animal-health outcomes at the feedlot from calves that were verified to be from cows that received pre-breeding vaccinations.” For more information about this study contact Lee Irvine at 403-671-4878. c

Watch AgCanada TV and be inspired AgCanada TV web series informs and motivates farmers Gain a new perspective on your farm, your family and your future with this informative video series from Farm Credit Canada.



INFORMATIVE:

INSPIRATIONAL:

FCC Chief Agricultural Economist, J.P. Gervais, explains the predicted ups and downs of the 2016 Canadian economy and their effect on the agriculture industry.

Sylvain Guimond, best-selling author and sports psychologist, shares 6 strategies for leading a successful life.

Current AGCanadaTV topics include: 

Exchange Rates and Their Effect on Canadian Exports

J.P. Gervais, explains the relationship between exchange rates and Canadian exports and why Canada remains competitive despite the declining dollar. 

Ag Industry Scores Viral Victory Greg Peterson, from Peterson Farm Brothers, discusses his success using various forms of social media to promote agriculture.



5 Keys to a Successful Agribusiness Kevin Stewart helps you focus on your farm’s future with these five tips for successful agribusiness.

Start watching: www.agcanada.com/video

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Watch all the episodes Now!

AGCanadaTV is sponsored by

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

 grazing

By Steve Kenyon

Overgrazing is a matter of timing O

vergrazing. It is a very misunderstood term. Let me clear this up right at the start. It does not matter how many head of livestock. It does not matter how many acres. Everyone wants to know, “How big do I make my paddocks? How many animals should I have on my pasture?” Two ranchers can have the same sized paddocks, with the same number of fields, with the same number of cattle and one can be overgrazing and the other might not. Neither question is relevant until you understand the true definition of overgrazing. Even the dictionary has it wrong: o·ver·graze, verb: — to graze (grassland) so heavily that

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

the vegetation is damaged and the ground becomes liable to erosion. Or from another source: overgrazing, noun — a situation in which there are too many cows or other animals eating grass in an area, which damages the environment. I disagree with both definitions. Overgrazing is a result of time, nothing else. When we are managing perennial forages, what we are really managing is the energy stores of the plants. Think of it as the plant’s fuel tank. The energy needed to start growth in the spring comes from these stores. If the plant is an annual or a new perennial, this energy will come from a seed, but with an existing perennial plant we need this fuel tank.

Some plants store their energy in the roots and some store it in the crown. Every species is different. As ranchers, we just need to remember that we need to manage this fuel tank. Spring has sprung and our dormant perennials want to start growing. With no green leaves yet, these plants need to take energy from the tank. The first growth in the spring starts from the energy reserves. (In some grasses, this actually starts the previous fall, another reason to leave residue in the fall). Once the first leaf is up it starts collecting sunlight and the magic that is photosynthesis can start supplying energy to the growing plant, only now the fuel tank is empty. If a plant is severely grazed when the fuel tank is empty, you are overgrazing.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

grazing

Here is my definition. Overgrazing occurs when a plant is defoliated at a time when the energy stores in the plant are depleted. Simply put, it is a matter of timing. We need to manage both the graze period and the rest period together so that we don’t graze a plant when it doesn’t have enough stored energy to regrow. Overgrazing can occur anytime during the year, not just in the spring. Let’s look at that spring pasture again that just put up its first few leaves. The plants have used up their fuel in what is called stage one of growth, and are now collecting sunlight. We do not want to graze these plants hard at this point. (A light grazing can actually cause some species to tiller in this stage, but it has to be very light.) If we let them continue to grow, they start getting more and more leaves www.canadiancattlemen.ca

that are collecting more sunlight. This is stage two growth. At the beginning of stage two, the energy reserves are low and overgrazing can easily occur. As we start coming to the end of stage two, the plant has collected enough sunlight and stored enough energy for its continued development. It can now replenish its own energy stores. By the end of stage two when the plant has a full fuel tank and is preparing for seed production, it is safe to graze. Stage three is seed production. Overgrazing can occur when the graze period is too long. If livestock are out on a paddock for too many days, they will start to take a second bite from the plants. This occurs when we turn livestock into a fresh pasture of late-stage-two forage and they graze all of the best plants. Once a plant is grazed, it will try to regrow; the speed of regrowth depends on the environment and the time of year. It will vary dependent on moisture, temperature, and growing conditions. If the plant is severely grazed the first time and all of the green leaves are removed, the plant will need to call again on its energy reserves for growth in order to recover. As the plant puts up new leaves, it empties the fuel tank. At this point, if the livestock are still in the same paddock, they will take a “second bite” of new leaves from the same plant. Now, with no green leaves and an empty fuel tank, how is this plant supposed to survive? We just overgrazed the plant by not removing the animals from the paddock soon enough. Every environment is different but regrowth in the spring can occur within two to three days in our part of Alberta. In drier environments, later in the summer or during a drought, the graze period may be longer. You will need to determine your desired graze period for your environment and adjust it for the time of year and the growing conditions. It changes. We can also overgraze a plant when the rest period between grazings is too short, so the plant doesn’t have enough time to replenish the tank. If you do not have enough paddocks and still maintain a short graze period, then your rest period ends up being too short. If you did not give enough rest to get your plants into late stage two where the fuel tank is full, you have hurt your plants. Again, the rest period depends on your environment. It could be anywhere from 25 days in a very wet environment to 365 days in a very dry environment.

Overgrazing occurs when a plant is defoliated while the energy stores are depleted. Your graze period can be too long, or your rest period can be too short. Both cause overgrazing because the livestock are allowed to take a second bite. A killing frost can also cause overgrazing. If we consider the killing frost in the fall as a grazing (or hay cut) and it hits when the plants have an empty fuel tank, they are overgrazed. They are going into winter with low energy reserves. How will these plants grow up in the spring? As an example, if your killing frost comes at some point in September, paddocks that were grazed mid-August might be in early stage two growth and have very low energy stores going into winter. At this point the killing frost can harm the plants. Some people call it winterkill. I call it overgrazing. We have four ways to cause overgrazing: 1) spring grazing, 2) fall grazing, 3) a graze period that’s too long, or 4) a rest period that’s too short. Despite the complexity of our business we are lucky in that nature is very forgiving. We can get away with making a mistake in managing our pastures once in a while. Our grasslands will recover. The issues come when we make the same mistakes over and over again. That is unforgivable. At Greener Pastures Ranching we graze some paddocks early in the spring. Sometimes, a killing frost affects some paddocks. Sometimes we have to overgraze. We all have an abused paddock, but being aware of how overgrazing occurs can help us avoid repeating this mistake. I make sure that I change the time of year a paddock is grazed in each growing season. I might rotate in the opposite direction one year, or start on a different paddock another year. By changing up the timing we can reduce the overgrazing on individual paddocks. Nature is forgiving. By my definition, overgrazing is a matter of timing. Nothing else. Wikipedia has it closer: — Overgrazing occurs when plants are exposed to intensive grazing for extended periods of time, or without sufficient recovery periods. This definition includes both the graze period and rest period! Way to go Wikipedia! 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.

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

 equipme n t

By Heather Smith Thomas

On straight stretches Nelson puts a brace in every quarter-mile, at the end of every roll of wire.

A Pro’s Tips on Building Durable Barbed-Wire Fences

ost fences for cattle utilize barbed wire, especially for large pastures, since a good barbed-wire fence is effective and much cheaper to build and maintain than rail fences or netting, and will last longer if properly installed. Jason Nelson has a ranch near Longview, in southern Alberta, and does custom fencing for many ranchers in his area. He has some tips and advice for constructing durable fences and making the job easier. He and his wife Cara have been building fences for 24 years. “We were 17 years old when we bought our first post-pounder,” says Nelson. His main crew consists of his wife, his younger brother Kyle, and a sisterin-law Michelle, but they sometimes have as many as eight people working on various projects during the summer. They build a lot of rail fences as well as barbed-wire fences. The key to a good barbed-wire fence is good braces. In easy terrain on straight stretches without corners, Nelson puts a brace every quarter mile — at the end of every roll of wire. “Low spots require additional braces, to make sure the tight wire doesn’t pull up the posts. Often when we go through a gully we put a

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

brace at the top on each side of it, but with some we just put eight-foot posts through the low spot,” he says. Then the main wires can go straight across it, with some additional wires in the low spot. In some instances he’s had to hang an anchor of some kind in the gully, to keep the wires from pulling up the posts, if there is a lot of pull on that part of the fence, but normally he just uses big-diameter eightfoot posts that will hold. “I also use eight-foot posts for my braces (so they can be set deeper) and use a 12-foot angle brace (going from the top of one post to the bottom of the other). These hold very well,” says Nelson. Wire spacing — and how many wires — will depend on the situation, such as how big the pasture is and how much pressure there will be on the fence, and whether there will be a lot of wildlife pressure as well. Post spacing can vary as well. “With a normal four-wire fence we usually put posts every 12 to 13 feet. This is pretty standard in range country, but in high-pressure areas some ranchers want a five-wire fence,” he says. He doesn’t use stays between posts. “I’ve talked to people who use stays, and it’s

often because the ground is harder to get posts in; if the posts can’t be set as deeply as you’d like, stays help add stability to the fence. Around here we don’t run into much terrain we can’t get posts into. In the high country there are more rocks, but here on the ranch land where we work it’s rare that we can’t get posts in the ground.” Most of the time the posts can be set with a pounder. This is fastest, so Nelson tries to drive them all — except in areas where it’s impossible to get a pounder to the fenceline. “In those situations I dig a post hole or pound the post in by hand,” he says. He occasionally uses steel posts in places where it’s difficult to pound in a wood post. “I don’t use metal T-posts very often. What I use is posts made out of sucker rod, with wire hooks welded on them already. These go through rocks very well and don’t bend easily. You just set the wires in the hooks and take a pipe wrench and give the post a quarter turn and it locks the wires into place. We often use these posts when fencing in winter when the ground is frozen, because we can pound them down through frost — a lot easier than trying Continued on page 28

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

CGA_cattleman17.indd 1

3/15/2017 2:59:11 PM

equ i p m e n t

Continued from page 26

to set a wood post. We mainly use these whenever we have to use steel posts,” he explains. “I use a piece of drill stem to hold with my post pounder and pound that small post through the middle of it, so it doesn’t fly out and hit you. Otherwise the little posts can flex and can fly out when you are pounding them.” Metal posts also work nicely when a fence must go through wet areas and sloughs where it’s difficult to drive wood posts. “I had to build a fence last summer through some bogs, and actually used seven-foot T-posts for that one. They went far enough down to hit solid ground where they could hold,” says Nelson. He also did some fencing in rough, steep country where it was impossible to take a tractor and pounder so he borrowed a pounder mounted on a track machine that could get up the steep slopes without tipping over. “I used that in the mountains and also went through some bogs with it. With the tracks it could go across most of the soft ground without sinking in,” he says. This machine has a pounder mounted on the back. “You just walk beside this machine and drive it from the ground with a joy stick; you don’t have to be on it. This is safer, especially going through areas where it was too steep to take a vehicle or tractor. I had never seen one of these machines, but I have a friend about 2-1/2 hours east of here who does custom fencing and I rented it from him. It’s handy for one person fencing alone because you can drive it as you walk beside it, and stop it wherever you want to set a post.” This saves time and labour and one person can set a lot of posts. Almost all the fences in his area can be built by driving posts rather than having to dig holes. “If the ground is really bad, we sometimes use a small auger to create a pilot hole for the post we’re going to pound, but we rarely have to do that. We’re fortunate to not have many rocks, though we occasionally run into some sandstone. Normally it’s deep enough that you can get a post in a couple feet before you hit the sandstone, though sometimes you have to break the sandstone with something,” says Nelson. “On our ranch, we have lots of ridges and some rocks on those ridgetops, but we can always get posts into it; there’s no solid rock. Every place is different, however, with different situations, and we just do whatever we have to do to set the posts. If you are a long ways

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

 TIPS FO R ROUG H G ROUND

Setting posts in difficult ground Building fence is more challenging in rocky, frozen or swampy ground when it’s impossible to dig post holes efficiently, or pound posts. Michael Thomas of Thomas and Son Custom Fencing, at Baker, Idaho, says options in rocks include chipping or prying the rocks out with a hand bar, or using a hammer drill. “This works for drilling small-diameter holes into solid rock to insert a steel post, or even a bigger hole for a brace post,” he says. “You can use either a pneumatic hammer drill that runs off an air compressor or an electric hammer drill and a generator. These work fairly well, especially if you use a heavy-duty industrial model. A small one won’t do the job in big rocks,” he says. With a good drill you can put posts into fairly solid rock. In some terrain, where it’s not too steep and there are surface rocks, you can create an above-ground basket/ cage of rocks as a brace to anchor the fence, in lieu of brace posts. Gather and stack the rocks and secure them with net wire, or make a cage and put rocks into it. “A cage three to four feet in diameter makes a solid anchor to secure your fence wire and stretch it from there,” he says. If terrain is too rocky to set wood posts, you can usually put steel posts into the ground deep enough to hold, using rock baskets every so often for braces. Another strategy for rocks/frozen ground when using a post pounder

from home and get into a bad situation you just make do with what you have, and this may mean digging it in or pounding it in by hand, but most of the pounding we do is with a mechanical pounder.” Nelson uses 1-3/4 inch barbed staples for attaching wires to wood posts. Barbed staples stay in better and don’t pop out as readily as the smooth staples. “Some people use staple guns to make it faster, but I’ve never tried them. They would be handy, if you could put barbed staples in them. A good hammer is still the best way,” he says. It pays to have all the tools you need, like a small chain saw for cutting notches into the brace posts. He pulls his post pounder

is to use a metal “post” to create a pilot hole. The pilot post will often go down through rocky ground if it’s not solid bedrock, pushing aside the rocks, and will penetrate frozen ground, whereas a wood post would be forced out of line or shatter. Thomas uses a seven-foot-tall metal pilot post to create holes for wood posts in difficult conditions. “The pilot post is only three or four inches in diameter and creates a hole to put the wood post into. The pointed bottom is solid drill steel about three feet long (to break the rock). Drill stem cone won’t hold up, but drill steel in the tip will break most rocks or push them out of the way. The rest of the pilot post is hollow, like well casing. This makes it lighter to carry. The top has a solid cap for the post pounder to hit. You drive the pilot post as far as you can, pull it out with the tractor loader, and insert your wood post into the pilot hole and drive it in — forcing it into the slightly smaller hole — and it is very solid and secure,” explains Thomas. “If you are using an automated driver, the pilot post is handy to start the hole if you have to drive through rocks or frost, or tree roots. Just make sure you can pull the pilot post back out. Most of the automated drivers are already affixed to a loader or a three-point hitch that you can pull it out with. When you build a pilot post, make sure you have a way to hook a chain to it and pull it back out,” he says.

behind his truck, and has a big tool box topper to carry everything he needs. “Chainsaws, hammers, fencing pliers are standard equipment along with generators (for power), digging bars, sledge hammers, etc. and pull straps for when you are stuck! A person learns from experience what you need to have — so you don’t have to go back home and get something when you are stuck back in the bush without what you need. It can be a long ways to get out and get it. My wife is good at keeping everything organized and making sure we have enough of everything we need — so we don’t run out of staples and that we always have the proper tools we might need that day,” he says. c

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

SEE Technology TOUCH Innovation BE Empowered

See the latest in livestock products and innovations at Western Canada’s only outdoor farm expo! 16

LANGHAM

Join us at the third annual Ag in Motion on July 18 - 20, 2017. It’s a unique opportunity to get up close and personal with today’s agricultural technology. Experience live demonstrations of field equipment, crops, livestock and services all together on 320 acres 15 minutes north west of Saskatoon.

SASKATOON

SEE Technology

™

TOUCH Innovation

™ Denotes a trade-mark of Canada’s Outdoor Shows Limited Partnership.

BE Empowered

www.aginmotion.ca

 Free Mar k et R e flect i o n s

By Steve Dittmer

Events Begin Shaping Trade with U.S.

s Canadians who closely follow American politics know, the Democrats have not suffered their loss gracefully. But it’s not party hacks but citizens who suffer from obstructionist tactics. Of the 4,000 or so appointments needing Senate confirmation, only two or three dozen had been confirmed by mid-April. One of those delays could definitely affect trade with Canada. In the waning days of the Obama administration, USDA resurrected the GIPSA rule, a proposal that free-market farm and ranch groups had vehemently opposed. For several years their supporters in Congress had written language into appropriations bills prohibiting implementation of the proposed rule. The prohibitions were dropped from the last appropriations bill after USDA promised the cattle sector it wouldn’t pursue the rule. Secretary Vilsack then broke that promise and USDA published the same content in two proposed rules and one interim final rule a month before the Trump administration took office. The interim rule would allow livestock producers to sue packers if they felt they were treated unfairly without the need to prove harm to livestock producers as a group. Nearly all U.S. Circuit Courts in cases involving different industries have consistently ruled that a plaintiff must prove harm to a class in order to have standing to sue a buyer. The rule’s author, former GIPSA administrator J. Dudley Butler, once described this exception to usual practice as a “plaintiff attorney’s dream.” The interim rule was meant to work in conjunction with one of the proposed rules prohibiting packers from paying premiums on better quality livestock, as this would open them up to claims that they unfairly paid more to some individuals than others. The thinking is packers would have to go back to buying livestock on the average, to avoid being sued. This direct assault on differentiation to produce livestock based on consumer preferences is what fringe livestock groups have been seeking for some time. They want to be paid the same amount for both high-quality and less valuable animals, without having to do the work, management and planning to produce high-quality products The interim final rule was scheduled to become law April 22, 2017. That was two days before the scheduled Senate hearing to confirm incoming Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue who would almost certainly have pulled the rule, but after President Trump’s hold on new regulations would have expired. Farm and ranch groups had been lobbying furiously to reverse this decision while fully expecting a flood of nuisance lawsuits being filed as soon as the rule went into effect. Thankfully, in mid-April came news that someone in the government was listening, when USDA-GIPSA’s

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

director of litigation and economic analysis, S. Brett Offutt, announced via the Federal Register that both the interim and proposed rules would be delayed until October 19, 2017. Additionally, a new proposed rule would open a comment period regarding the fate of the interim rule. The industry is vigorously pushing to have all three squashed. Last month I wrote about the dangers of the Border Adjustment Tax (BAT) on imports being proposed to recover revenue “lost” in tax cuts. Since then it’s become evident that not everyone favours a BAT. The list of doubters includes Democrats and Republicans in Congress, members of the cabinet and several key figures in the White House, plus a long list of manufacturers who rely on imported parts and materials, and big retailers who rely on imported goods to keep prices down for consumers. Numerous members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus have also come out against the BAT. President Trump remains noncommittal, leaving open the possibility that the parade of business leaders, retailers and farm groups who are opposing the BAT and pleading for more open trade might still have an effect on Trump’s thinking. During his confirmation hearing, Sonny Perdue noted about 80 per cent of the comments in support of freer trade flooding into the White House were from agricultural groups, a critical bastion of Trump’s election success. As of mid-April there was still a real chance that the BAT would be stripped out of the tax reform legislation before it becomes the law of the land. Any fast start regarding trade has been stymied by the Democratic campaign to hold up confirmations, especially that of Perdue and proposed U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who needs a waiver because he did work for foreign countries in the past. The meetings between President Trump and Prime Minister Abe of Japan and Chinese President Xi before the U.S. had adopted an official trade policy or had a full complement of trade officials in place was seen by some as a way of keeping the U.S. from falling too far behind other countries working on bilateral agreements. President Trump and Chinese President XI have agreed to begin exploring re-opening China to U.S. beef. If Trump can get that done, he will have succeeded where no one else has. As for NAFTA, a white paper circulated by the administration in Congress regarding negotiating positions lacked any fire-breathing rhetoric. It did indicate the administration wanted to negotiate more flexibility to impose tariffs on Mexican or Canadian goods. But it would keep NAFTA’s current dispute resolution system. A Wall Street Journal story in general indicated the draft was less threatening than the Mexicans expected and more contentious than the Canadians expected. c

Steve Dittmer is the CEO of Agribusiness Freedom Foundation, a non-profit group promoting free market principles throughout the food chain. He can be reached at steve@agfreedom.ag.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

and Canfax Research Services, divisions of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association

BeefWatch

 Growth in domestic beef production has been tempered by smaller carcass weights offsetting larger slaughter numbers. Smaller production gains combined with strong export markets have resulted in unexpected strength in the fed cattle market that rallied 28 per cent from the October low to March. Alberta fed cattle prices in March were steady with last year and have performed better than the U.S. or Ontario markets.

CATTLE INVENTORIES Canadian beef cow inventories stable The January 1, 2017 total Canadian cattle inventories were up marginally (0.2 per cent) at 12.1 million head. Total inventories in 2015 and 2016 were revised higher by 5,000 head (0.04 per cent) and 75,000 head (0.6 per cent), respectively. 2017 is the second year of larger total cattle inventories following a 0.9 per cent increase in 2016. However, the increases were both minor, leaving industry in the consolidation phase. The beef cow herd was up 0.2 per cent to 3.8 million head on January 1, 2017, as a 3.8 per cent or 20,200 head increase in breeding heifer inventories last year could not offset cow marketings, which were up 3.6 per cent or 20,800 head. Beef cows consolidated in the East and expanded in a couple of provinces in the West with the Atlantic provinces 4.9 per cent, Ontario -3 per cent, Quebec -0.3 per cent, Manitoba -0.3 per cent, Alberta 0.8 per cent, British Columbia +2.1 per cent and Saskatchewan +2.4 per cent. With sharply lower cattle prices dampening cow-calf margins in 2016, the signal for expansion has waned. Breeding heifer numbers were down 1.8 per cent to 536,600 head, which is in line with the 10-year average of 538,600 head. Provincially, heifer retention was down in Ontario Canadian Cattle Inventories January 1 (1,000 head) 2016

2017

2017 vs. 2016

213.4

214.8

0.7%

Beef cows

3,826.6

3,833.7

0.2%

Dairy cows

959.1

956.9

-0.2%

Dairy heifers

446.1

442.4

-0.8%

Beef heifers (brdng)

546.7

536.6

-1.8%

Beef heifers (sltr)

924.7

937.0

1.3%

Steers

1,177.4

1,188.0

0.9%

Calves

3,941.0

3,955.6

0.4%

Total

12,035.0

12,065.0

0.2%

Bulls

Source: Statistics Canada

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

(-4.6 per cent), Manitoba (-4.1 per cent), Alberta (-2.2 per cent) and Saskatchewan (-1.8 per cent); but up in Quebec (+10 per cent), the Atlantic provinces (+3.2 per cent) and British Columbia (+1.8 per cent). Combining beef cow and breeding heifers, the total breeding female numbers were steady at 4.4 million head. The steady breeding female inventory suggests limited growth in the new calf crop. Feeder exports will remain the critical factor for domestic cattle supplies. While steer (>1 year old) and slaughter heifer inventories were up 1.1 per cent (or 22,900 head) to 2.1 million head, the number of cattle on feeding operations on January 1 was fully steady with last year at 1.4 million head. The number of calves (<1 year old) was also up slightly by 0.4 per cent to four million head, which is the largest January calf inventory since 2013. Consequently, feeder and calf supply outside of feedlots was up 0.8 per cent (or 32,000 head) to 4.1 million head. U.S. herd expansion continues USDA reported U.S. total cattle and calf inventories on January 1 were up 1.8 per cent at 93.5 million head. As anticipated, the U.S. beef industry continued to expand the herd throughout 2016. Beef cows were up 3.5 per cent at 31.2 million head. Beef cow inventories are now 2.1 million head larger than the 2014 low, at the highest level since 2010. This is the fastest three-year growth rate in 40 years in terms of a percentage increase in cow numbers. This was the result of the major run up in prices, as well as the major shift in weather patterns from extreme drought, to much more optimal moisture conditions. Given current weather conditions, market conditions, and heifer retention, there could certainly be more cows in 2018. That would mark the fourth year of this expansion phase. In 1982, it was the fourth and last year of expansion, while in the 1990s, cow numbers grew from 1991 to 1996. Not only did this latest report confirm herd expansion, it Continued on page 32

 U.S. beef replacement heifers January 1 7.0 6.5 Million head

Beef Watch is prepared by the staff of Canfax

6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0

Source: USDA

C a t t l e m e n · may 2 0 1 7

BeefWatch pointed to further growth. Despite U.S. fed cattle prices falling throughout 2016, heifers retained for breeding were up 1.2 per cent. Pre-report estimates were for heifer replacements to be down as expansion slowed. Breeding heifers are now at the highest level since 1995, after six consecutive years of growth. But it is the smallest yearover-year increase in these past six years with 2016 up four per cent, and 2015 up 9.6 per cent. Expansion is slowing as the number of heifers on feed and being slaughtered are increasing, but it is occurring at a slower rate than analysts projected. Beef cow slaughter has increased but, given the larger herd, the cull rate remains quite low. Given the continued expansion, larger upcoming calf crops point to growing beef supplies through the remainder of this decade. Barring any major weather event, and continued large carcass weights, the U.S. will likely set new beef production records in this cycle. CYCLE INDICATORS The female-to-male disposal ratio (the number of cows and heifers exported live or slaughtered domestically for every bull or steer) was 0.92 in 2015 and 2016; this is below the long-term average of 1.02 but may simply reflect the larger heifer exports to the U.S. in 2013-15 that reduced the number of females available in Canada. Hence, this is not an indication of expansion. This is confirmed by the heifer slaughter ratio (the number of heifers slaughtered for every 100 steers) at 61 in both 2015 and 2016; below the historic average of 70. As exports of feeder heifers for breeding dipped in 2015 before rebounding in 2016, heifer slaughter may increase in 2017. This is already occurring to some extent with heifer slaughter up eight per cent in the first quarter, while steer slaughter is up three per cent. The beef cow culling rate in 2016 was 11.7 per cent right U.S. Cattle Inventories January 1 (1,000 head)

All cows Beef cows

2016

2017

39,476.2

40,559.2

2.7%

30,165.8

31,210.2

3.5%

2017 vs. 2016

Dairy cows

9,310.4

9,349.0

0.4%

Heifers >500 lbs.

19,907.3

20,052.0

0.7%

Beef rep. heifers

6,340.2

6,419.2

1.2%

Dairy rep. heifers

4,814.0

4,754.0

-1.2%

Other heifers

8,753.1

8,878.8

1.4%

Steers >500 lbs.

16,315.4

16,353.5

0.2%

Bulls >500 lbs.

2,142.4

2,233.6

4.3%

Calves <500 lbs.

14,076.7

14,386.3

2.2%

Calf crop

34,086.7

35,082.7

2.9%

Cattle on feed (all sizes)

13,157.0

13,067.0

-0.7%

Total cattle

91,918.0

93,584.6

1.8%

Source: USDA

C a t t l e m e n · m ay 2 0 1 7

in line with the historic average. In the first quarter of 2017 cow slaughter has been up 11 per cent (11,815 head) while exports are down 36 per cent (17,000 head). Overall, cow marketings are down slightly but not enough to say anything definitive about. Alberta D1,2 cow prices have been tracking with the five-year average, rallying from a low of $93/cwt in February to $103/cwt by the end of March. Alberta cows have traded at a $11-22/cwt premium to the U.S. market in the first quarter and had a $13-20/cwt premium over the Ontario market. Ontario D1,2 cow prices continue to lag behind the five-year average, but the gap has narrowed as prices rallied from a low of $75/cwt in January to $88/cwt in mid-March. Beef Production Canadian beef production (domestic slaughter and live slaughter exports) was up 9.6 per cent in 2016 at 2.99 billion pounds (1.35 million tonnes). Domestic production was up eight per cent and live slaughter exports up 20 per cent. Larger production came from a 6.9 per cent increase in marketings (with reduced feeder cattle exports in 2015-16) being amplified by record large carcass weights. Steer carcass weights were up 24 lbs. to average 919 lbs. for the year. In the first quarter of 2017, domestic beef production is up three per cent with fed beef production up two per cent as smaller carcass weights reduce tonnage despite fed slaughter being up five per cent. Non-fed beef production (coming from cows and bulls) is up seven per cent, despite slaughter being up 13 per cent. Carcass weights from all cattle were down 32 lbs. from last year in the first quarter. U.S. beef production is up 4.9 per cent year-to-date but strong export demand (up 23 per cent from last year) has been supportive to prices.

UNEXPECTED STRONG PRICES Cutout Values The AAA cutout has rallied 11 per cent from the January low to $274/cwt by the beginning of March. This is only six per cent below last year’s price the same week. The AA cutout  canadian beef production Live slaughter exports

4,000 Carcass weight (million lbs.)

Continued from page 31

Domestic slaughter

3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0

Source: Canfax Research

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

BeefWatch is up 10 per cent from the January low and only four per cent below last year’s. The cutout has been supported by stronger 50 per cent trim prices, which have been soft in January and February during the last three years but stayed strong in 2017. In fact, 50 per cent trim prices rallied by the end of January to be 57 per cent stronger than last year and 18 per cent stronger than the three-year average in February. This has been supportive to some end meats and thin cuts — particularly the chuck and short plate. In contrast, lean 85 per cent trim is running five per cent below last year and 10 per cent below the three-year average. Throughout February the AAA and AA cutouts ran at a premium to the U.S. Choice and Select. The last time the Canadian market was at a premium to the U.S. in February was 2013. Fed cattle Alberta fed cattle prices rallied 28 per cent from the October low of $131/cwt to $168/cwt in March, to be back at year-ago levels. Feedlots regained leverage with packers despite protein supplies increasing in North America as packers were caught short in the first quarter with better than anticipated demand and domestic production barely steady as carcass weights dropped. The live steer as a percentage of the AAA cutout rebounded from a low of 54 per cent in September 2016 to 63 per cent in January 2017 before settling around 60 per cent in February. This is firmly back in the range established in the second half of 2010 and would imply feedlots continue to have some leverage. At 62 per cent in March, feedlots are in a better leverage position than last year when the fed steer price was 58 per cent of the AAA cutout. The rebound has been stronger in Alberta compared to Eastern Canada. Consequently, the Alberta-to-Ontario price spread widened to a record larger $20/cwt in December 2016. While it has narrowed in the first quarter of 2017, it remains around $13/cwt in March. Eastern Canadian slaughter has increased from around 10,000 head per week in early January to 14,000 head the week of March 11, 2017. Since early February, weekly slaughter has  canadian weekly AAA cutout values 2016

$310

2017

averaged 1,650 head larger than last year. Of the 17,250 head/week of capacity in the East, there is 4,000 head dedicated to veal. Weekly veal slaughter has averaged 3,850 head/week in 2017 at around 96 per cent utilization. This makes capacity for fed and non-fed cattle around 13,250 head/week and the weekly average for March was pushing that capacity in an effort to get current. Eastern slaughter is up 11 per cent year-to-date. The Alberta market has also performed stronger than historically against the U.S. market as well. The Albertato-Nebraska cash-to-cash basis was positive in January and February before weakening in March. The March 2017 basis at -$5.50/cwt is still very strong compared to -$11.80/cwt in 2016 or the five-year average of -$15.50/cwt. Feeder Cattle Despite the strong fed cattle cash prices, feeder cattle prices continue to lag $8/cwt below the five-year average on 800-900-lb. steers and $15/cwt below on 500-600-lb. steers. Feedlot margins just got into the black in December with the cash prices. For cattle that were contracted at lower prices, they would have still been in the red. Feeders placed in March are still projecting a loss when hedged. The feeder basis has been exceptionally strong in the first quarter, and was essentially at par in January and February before weakening to -$7.42/cwt in March. This is the strongest feeder basis since 1987 and stands in stark contrast to the five-year average of -$15-21/ cwt as the first quarter is typically the weakest quarter encouraging feeder cattle to go south. When comparing historically we should keep in mind that in the fall of 2016 the CME feeder futures index weight was increased by 50 lbs. and, therefore, we can expect the feeder basis being about $3/cwt stronger. Feeder cattle exports are down 37 per cent year-todate after being down 41 per cent in 2016 and 31 per cent in 2015. Continued on page 34

 weekly 50 per cent fresh trimmings

3-yr. avg.

$/cwt

Cdn $ per cwt

2017

$120

$290

$270

$250

$230

2016

3-yr. avg.

$140

$100 $80 $60 $40

Source: AAFC, Canfax

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Source: AAFC, Canfax

C a t t l e m e n · may 2 0 1 7

BeefWatch  alberta, Ontario and U.S. fed steer

$190 Cdn $/cwt

Jan-15

$190

1.35

1.34

1.25

Q2 EAST

1.53

1.59

1.40

1.38

1.27

WEST

1.60

1.62

1.37

1.25

Q3 EAST

1.61

1.65

1.44

1.42

1.35

WEST

1.72

1.75

1.52

1.43

Q4 EAST

1.64

1.67

1.39

1.43

1.37

WEST

1.65

1.64

1.40

1.43

1.37

Q1 EAST

1.39

1.48

1.25

1.30

1.23

WEST

1.45

1.53

1.25

1.27

1.1 9

Q2 EAST

1.27

1.40

1.18

1.26

1.19

WEST

1.28

1.39

1.16

1.22

1.12

Q3 EAST

1.33

1.4 1

1.2 1

1.27

WEST

1.34

1.42

1.24

1.31

1.25

Q4 EAST

1.36

1.48

1.22

1.34

1.32

WEST

1.22

1.30

1.10

1.19

1.16

Q1 EAST

1.1 2

1.29

1.08

1.16

1.15

WEST

1.16

1.27

1.03

1.08

1.03

$170 $160 $150 $140 $130 $120 1

Alberta fed steer - live - weekly averages

Source: Canfax  Alberta feeder basis, 850-lb. steer 2015

$10

2016

5-yr. avg.

2017

($10)

($20)

($30) Dec

1.61

$180

Nov

1.59

5-yr. avg.

Oct

WEST

2017

Sep

1.24

2016

Aug

1.24

2015

$210

Jul

1.32

Jan-17

$200

Jun

1.5 1

Jul-16

 Alberta weekly fed steer price

May

1.39

Jan-16

Source: Canfax

Shortkeep steers (8-9)

Q1 EAST

Jul-15

Apr

Yearling steers (7-8)

$110

Mar

Yearling heifers (6-7)

$130 $120

Jan

2016

Steer calves (5-6)

$150 $140

Cnd $ /cwt

2015

Heifer calves (4-5)

$170 $160

Feb

Replacement Price Ratio

(Replacement cattle price divided by slaughter price)

$180

Cnd $ per cwt

The lower the replacement ratio, the fewer dollars the feedlot must pay to replace a fed animal with a feeder; conversely, a higher ratio means the feedlot must pay more per pound to replace those animals. Consequently, a higher ratio has negative implications on feedlot profitability as more dollars are spent placing new cattle. Replacement ratios peaked in the second half of 2015 and declined throughout 2016. In the first quarter of 2017, replacement ratios stabilized from fourth quarter 2016 but remain below year-ago levels to be the lowest since the second quarter of 2013. Steers 500-600 lbs. were down the most at 1.12 and 1.16 in the East and West, respectively, compared to Q1 2016. Heifers 600-700 lbs. were down the least at 1.15 and 1.03 in the East and West, respectively. Overall steers 700-800 lbs. have the highest replacement ratios.

QUARTER

U.S. fed steer

ON fed steer

$200

Replacement Ratios

YEAR

AB fed steer

$210

Continued from page 33

Source: Canfax  eastern canada weekly F.I. slaughter 5-yr. avg.

16,000

2015

2016

Number of head

14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000

2017

6,000

Source: Canfax

C a t t l e m e n · m ay 2 0 1 7

Source: CBGA

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

BUILDING TRUST IN CANADIAN BEEF

Build a forage legacy Homegrown thoughts for the next generation of grass stewards

“The cattle industry has never given much shelf space to grass management and forage. Cattle and technology have always been an easier sell.” Two things about veteran Val Marie, Sask. rancher Lynn Grant: He always speaks his mind, and he is a lifelong passionate advocate for grass. Grant believes grass may be the most powerful environmental tool in the beef industry tool kit. “Grass can be marketed, sold as pristine and is home to a whole bunch of species that simply have not survived anywhere else. It’s an appealing story,” he says. “Sometimes grass farmers think they’re the good guys simply because they have left land in its natural state. So they don’t have to take steps to do it better. “But we can do a fantastically better job if we put our mind to it. Building a forage legacy starts on our own places and follows in our industry if we have the right attitude and approach.” Here are his thoughts on grass management for the next generation based on a lifetime in the business. Adaptive management. Range management is adaptive management. You adapt to the criteria of the day. Most operations are based on some sort of rotational grazing system that reduces the time exposure, what many would term the “take half, leave half ” approach.

Lynn Grant: There is an incredible network of people worldwide interested in grass management. Search them out.

But this industry is continually evolving. The roundtables on sustainable beef guidelines are based on continual improvement. “Hone your skills,” Grant says. Never run out of grass. When you run out of hay in the spring or grass in the summer, you run out of functional options. You have to pay big money just to survive. Always keep a forage reserve. If you run into back-to-back dry years, you have no options without a reserve. It costs money to do that, but if you don’t, you will suffer.

Think carbon. One of the biggest things we can do is to think carbon, increase the organic matter of our soils. Water infiltration tests show the value of capturing rainfall. “If it falls on my place I want to keep it.” Get away from home. An interest in cattle industry affairs and new ideas takes Grant away from home. “It’s too easy to get busy, stay at home and stagnate.” Act decisively. The greatest gift we can give our children is to teach them to make a decision. It may change, you may have to adapt. But that’s how you learn. A poor decision well executed is better than a good decision executed poorly. Celebrate individuality. We have to be careful not to turn up our noses at people because they don’t think the way we do. We need people who think differently in production and research and not to fear people who think differently as consumers. New rationale

Grant participated in the McDonald’s pilot project and is registered under VBP+. One thing he learned from this whole recent experience is that society needs to understand the benefits of a functioning grassland ecosystem. Grant Ranch is continuing that discussion at their blog at www.grantranch.ca. “If we can keep that dialogue going, we can build a modern view of beef sustainability that includes grass.”

B U I L D I N G T R U S T T H R O U G H S U S TA I N A B L E B E E F P R O D U C T I O N

THE TOP BRAND IN PAIN RELIEF. 1

NEW

IO CAT NDI

NS!

When your cattle are in pain, Metacam® 20* is a brand you can trust to help. And now, Canada’s #1 long-lasting pain reliever for cattle has a new label indication for abdominal surgery in cattle, as well as new claims for sheep and swine. Choose pain relief that is good for your cattle and good for your operation. Choose Metacam® 20*. 1. ImpactVet 2017 *Metacam ® 20 mg/mL Solution for Injection (Meloxicam) Metacam ® is a registered trademark of Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH. ©2017 Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. Learn more about our new swine, sheep and abdominal surgery claims at metacamcattle.ca.

 straigh t f ro m t h e h i p

By Brenda Schoepp

The origin of all things

arly adopters in technology are keen to implement all they can afford for the precision of farming and the rearing of food animals. Producers can and will use every available platform at their disposal, be that a drone, robot, artificial intelligence, ultra-high frequency, autonomous machines, cloudbased sensors or a host of others. These are needed advancements that could have a positive impact on both the growing of food and the environment one is wishing to regenerate. And the connectivity of people through the Internet of things allows for transformational dialogue, information transfer and market exposure. The counter view is that technology could deplete rural communities as machines and virtual experiences replace living people residing in that space who grow not just food but create beautiful communities which, in turn, provide rural economic stability. Will three autonomous tractors replace three operators? As rural Canada is drained of her people, she could also be exhausted in political influence and societal appreciation. How do we continue to advance as food producers and still keep alive the rural Canada that we cherish? Equally important is the continued pressure on land to perform under the weight of the capital and operational costs of the farm, including the costly new implement or technology. The push is on, and by human nature, there will be a rush to go with gusto while shifting input decisions to a third party who holds the rights to the technology or the data, such as in precision farming. Food producers are then unknowingly divesting themselves of those decisions and their implications over time. These gradual changes are often unnoticed and the future impact can be underappreciated. What will cattle production look like in 25 years? Will livestock be regulated because of the information gap between urban and rural actions or will science have replaced red meat protein with another innovation? Will drones replace your horses and robots replace the feed truck? As we stand at the crossroads and fully accept that technology is a great enhancement to animal welfare and comfort, personal safety, speed of commerce and enhanced information and communication, one also recognizes that the pressure point is at the bottom of our feet and not in our exploding head. For all food — animal and plants — grows in one medium and that medium is soil. Therefore all life as we know it — ours included — is soil dependent. In single trait selection there will always be a trade-off, usually fertility. It is the same in high-production systems. Asking a steer to gain eight pounds a day will have a consequence, likely in health and in the perception of welfare. In the field, taking wheat to 200 bushels an acre will at some point deplete the soil or have an unrecoverable cost consequence. Is there a solution to improve

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

nutrient density in all food, produce the volume of food needed and regenerate the environment? The Industrial Revolution and food demand put production in high gear, and farmers became both enthusiastic and impatient to ride out the variability of performance in a field or grazing animal. In doing so, have we abandoned the primary purpose of the plant, which is to grow a root, take in carbon and sequester it deep into the soil for the purpose of regeneration? We must also ask: Have we taken an animal and confined it so we are forced to put pressure on annual production and lose the positive environmental impact of grazing animals or flock? Don’t imagine for a minute that I profess to open the bins, gates and cages because our food demand would heartily outstrip the supply, but we are compelled at this point in history to revisit the origin of all things. The key for the future lies in the appreciation of the past, and for cattle they are part of the solution to regeneration. The adaptability of plants and animals to an environment is assured over time, and science and technology have been a complement to this. This is true if you look at beef cattle origins throughout Europe with the Aurochs and the other ancient breeds such as Wagyu (Japan), the Watusi (Egypt) and Zebu (subcontinental India). Cave drawings highlight how the Aurochs adapted and physically changed as their grazing environment evolved. Revisiting the concept of cattle as the solution rather than the problem in soil health is part of the ecological puzzle. Wheat was functional grass in 10,000 B.C. and evolved to where it is today both naturally and technically, but the idea of planting was the foundation for forming a collection of families living in the same space with the same purpose. It was farming that built the first communities. Approaching food production from an ecological perspective allows for the origin and the future to be intertwined and there is no separation between cause and effect. Technology is used to enhance soil integrity while adding value to the farming community in which it is housed. When plants are appreciated for their origin, breeding programs to recapture nutrient traits (or enhance them) and consider their innate ability as long-term sequesters, become intriguing, and those varieties needed for high output can be complementary in a rotation. The appreciation of cattle as part of the solution, even when being checked and monitored with UHF technology by a drone, is a main driver in the action of the farm, and understanding that cattle have the ability to adapt allows for cost structure reduction. We can connect the Internet of all things and the origin of all things for a regenerative future for our soil and our lives. c Contact Brenda through her website: www.brendaschoepp.com. All rights reserved. Brenda Schoepp 2017

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Hear the stories behind the stories.

NEW PODCAST EPISODES ADDED EVERY THURSDAY Glacier FarmMedia, your go-to source for national agricultural news and information proudly presents Between the Rows â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A weekly podcast that delivers the stories behind the stories in Canadian agriculture. Drawing from our more than 20 print and online brands, our reporting staff discuss the top stories and latest developments in agriculture today. Between the Rows also goes beyond the printed story and delves deeper to bring more detail on topics that effect todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s producers.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE BETWEEN THE ROWS PODCAST TODAY!

 vet aDvi c e

IN SEARCH OF FESCUE

o story about ranching would be complete without mention of two elements, generically unrelated yet closely coupled to ranching’s origin beginning in the late 1800s and its dominating role into the 21st century. Old texts and oral history serve as background. One component is an ancient grass that provided year-round nutrition for millions of bison through the centuries; the other, a weather phenomenon unique to the eastern slopes of the Rockies — the chinook. The richness of rough fescue, a nutritious perennial bunchgrass, remains the source of extended grazing into late fall and early winter for many ranches. Fescue’s existence became the lifeblood of many foothills ranching operations. Fescue, by nature, is much more than a simple bunch grass. In the words of Sarah Green, Mount Sentinel Ranch, in an article titled Ranchers Explain Pasture Strategies (2012): “Our fescue grass is like gold. You have to be careful with it. Fescue grasslands have to be managed in a certain way.” Sometimes called prairie wool because of the woven pattern it forms in dense mats when dry, the hardy grass cures on the stem and retains much of its nutrition above ground after maturity. The above-ground cache of protein and energy sustains both domestic and wild grazers and limits ranchers’ feed costs. Clay Chattaway of the Bar S Ranch, west of Nanton, depends on fescue grasslands. Preservation of native range remains the primary reason ranchers tailor grazing management practices to individual operations. Many ranches across the foothills do not provide additional feed until March and April, and then only to keep cattle out of pastures during a vulnerable growth period. Grazing management, including care of riparian areas of the watershed, along with conservation of wildlife become passions. Without proper care, grass invaders like timothy and tame grass, weeds and brush encroach upon natural range challenging rough fescue and other native grasses, limiting winter feeding capability. Gains on properly managed fescue can reach four pounds per day. The chinook belt along the face of the

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

Rocky Mountain foothills in southwestern Alberta incorporates significant tracts of remaining fescue prairie. Warm summers and mild winters characterize the chinook climate with mean annual temperatures of approximately 3.5 C. Summer temperatures hover around 14 C and winter temperatures around -8 C. Annual precipitation ranges between 400 and 450 mm. The grassland community is dominated by rough fescue with lesser quantities of Parry’s oatgrass, June grass, and wheat grass. Forbs are abundant and often include yellow bean, sticky geranium, bedstraw, and chickweed. Drier sites have an increased amount of needleand-thread grass. Moist sites along stream banks, north-facing slopes, and seepage sites support shrub communities dominated by snowberry, rose, saskatoon, and silverberry. White-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, coyote, rabbit, ground squirrel, sage grouse, elk, moose and duck are common in the region. Outside interest in the importance of fescue prairie is exemplified by work conducted through organizations like the Glenbow Ranch Park Foundation. With assistance from Shell Canada, the foundation established the Shell Foothills Fescue Research Institute at the Glenbow Ranch site adjacent to Cochrane. According to the foundation, rough fescue is part of this endangered ecosystem. The 1,435-hectare Glenbow Ranch Provincial Park encompasses one of the largest remaining areas of native grasslands in the province. The institute’s research effort is aimed at determining how fescue can assist in land reclamation. As well, they plan to promote the use of fescues for lawns near the park because they require next to no water. Rough fescue was designated Alberta’s grass emblem on April 30, 2003, due to the efforts of another environmental steward, the Prairie Conservation Forum. Three species of rough fescue: northern rough fescue (F. altaica), mountain rough fescue (F. campestris), and plains rough fescue (F. hallii) are symbolic of Alberta’s natural diversity as you move from the plains to the foothills, and into the mountains. Francis Gardner, a longtime rancher and environmental steward of foothill rangelands said,

“There is a spirit to this land.” Fescue typifies the spirit. Moving east, the beauty and resilience of mixed-grass prairie is captured in the amazing diversity of species. Over 150 species of plants, each adapted in its own way to the extremes of temperature, variation in precipitation, effects of fire, consequence of grazing, topography, and nature of the soil determine the mix of plants. In areas with well-drained soils, drought-tolerant grasses such as western wheatgrass and blue grama may grow within metres of areas dominated by little bluestem, a grass requiring more moisture. It is impossible to calculate the value of prairie species and what they may hold for future crops, medicines and other products (Nature North.com). Native rangelands originally covered about 61 million hectares, but now only occupy about 20 per cent of its natural habitat. With the exception of extreme southeastern Alberta, the grasslands of southern Alberta are located in the South Saskatchewan River watershed, which comprises just four per cent of Alberta’s land area. As much as 40 per cent of the headwaters of the South Saskatchewan River basin are located on private land — including many of Alberta’s ranches. Fescue prairie occupies a moister environment than mixed grass prairie and has a greater abundance of species. On average, fescue prairie produces twice as much forage as the most productive mixed grass prairie. It can be found on isolated hill complexes of the Milk River Ridge, Cypress Hills, Touchwood Hills and the Manitoba Escarpment. Fescue prairie is the prominent grassland in the Aspen Parkland, except in southeast Saskatchewan and southwestern Manitoba where mixed grass prairie shares aspen groves. Once extending over 255,000 square kilometres in the Prairie provinces, less than five per cent of the original fescue prairie remains. 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

 prime cuts

By Steve Kay

TAKING NOTICE OF THE DRIVERS

hen markets behave unexpectedly, it’s valuable to look back and see what the key drivers were to create such conditions. That’s just as true for cattle and beef markets as it is for financial markets. In the case of the first two in the U.S, aggressive feedlot marketings and better than expected beef demand at home and abroad led to a much more successful first quarter than expected. It also boosted live cattle prices in Canada. Cash live cattle prices week after week were much higher than had been forecast at the start of the year and boxed beef prices rallied strongly from midFebruary to the end of March. Cattle feeders helped their cause by marketing cattle as aggressively as possible. This kept them current in their marketings and allowed carcass weights to decline seasonally much more than last year. For example, the second last week of the quarter saw steer weights average 868 pounds, down 19 pounds on the same week last year, and heifer weights average 816 pounds, down 10 pounds. Record heavy carcasses in the fall of 2015 sank the market so cattle feeders vowed not to let this occur again. Feedlots began this year with aggressive marketings in January. The number of cattle marketed out of feedlots 1,000 head or larger was up 57,000 head or 3.6 per cent on January last year. The pace quickened in February, which saw 162,000 head or 10.2 per cent more cattle marketed. March also saw a strong year-on-year increase. Early forecasts of March marketings put them up about 90,000 head or 5.4 per cent on last year, after subtracting 4.5 per cent for one more slaughter day this year than last. The market began the year with forecasts that cash live cattle prices would average US$114 per cwt live.

But cash prices (basis USDA’s five-area steer price) put in their weekly low for the quarter the first week of January at US$117.67 per cwt live and never looked back. They rallied strongly from mid-February to put in a high for the quarter of US$130.91 per cwt the week ended March 26. They declined more than US$3 per cwt the week after that. But they still averaged US$123.02 per cwt for the quarter. This was down 8.3 per cent from the $134.81 per cwt average of 2016’s first quarter. But analysts had forecast prices to be down 15.4 per cent from last year. Analysts’ early January forecasts were for second-quarter prices to average US$112 per cwt live. But barring a big price collapse, which appears unlikely, second-quarter prices might average around US$117 per cwt, according to analysts’ upwardly revised forecasts. Boxed beef prices during the quarter also far exceeded expectations, also from mid-February when they advanced in tandem with live cattle prices. USDA’s comprehensive boxed beef cutout, which includes cuts, grinds and trim, averaged US$198.33 per cwt the first week of January. It declined to a low for the quarter of US$190.37 per cwt the week ended February 10. But it advanced each of the next six weeks to an average of US$216.60 per cwt the week ended March 24 before declining slightly the following week. Interestingly, the Choice cutout exceeded the overall cutout in only two of the quarter’s 13 weeks. So the real strength in the cutout came through the Select cutout and a big rally in the price of grinds and trim. Fatty trimmings from steers and heifers (50CL) more than doubled in value during the quarter. Demand for all types of beef certainly made the quarter better than expected for cattle feeders and packers. c

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

 CCA repo rts

By Dan Darling

Making a place for those new calves

alving time is always a busy and rewarding time of the year. Producers are checking heifers and cows several times a day watching for signs of difficult births, like a breech calf that may require assistance or, in the event of twins, ensuring a mother cow is suckling both calves. These weeks are tiring and stressful but seeing a mother cow lick and nudge a healthy newborn calf up onto its legs, watching it take its first steps and start to suckle the colostrum-rich milk that fills out its belly, provides a sense of satisfaction like no other. It is a time of optimism for the year ahead. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) is hard at work to ensure producers have the operating environment that creates the opportunities that enable them to continue raising high-quality Canadian beef. These efforts come at an exciting time in Canadian agriculture and are yet another reason for optimism. The Minister of Finance’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth cited Canada’s agri-food industry as the case study for strategic investment into innovation and skills development in its most recent recommendations to the government. Both the council and Federal Budget 2017 noted that Canadian agriculture is well positioned to take advantage of growing international demand for food given the country’s resources, research strengths and “strong network of entrepreneurs.” The CCA’s active involvement in climate change policy reflects the strength of our research and commitment to environmental stewardship. Canada’s beef industry attributes just 3.2 per cent to the nation’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint, while contributing $33 billion to the economy. Through research and innovation Canadian beef has one of the lowest GHG footprints per unit of production in the world at 12.0 kg CO2 equivalent per kilogram of live weight, less than half of the world average. Canadian rangelands utilized by the beef industry — including some of the last stands of native grasslands,

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

home to thousands of different species — store substantial amounts of carbon (1.5 billion tonnes). In April, the CCA appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to demonstrate how sustainable beef production can be an effective partner to achieving Canada’s economic and environmental targets. In addition to highlighting the fact that Canada’s beef production GHG footprint has already been reduced by 15 per cent since 1981, the CCA indicated the desire to prevent the further loss of grasslands going forward. The committee heard that GHG emissions could be cut by up to 20 per cent through uptake of mitigation strategies and another five per cent could be cut from reducing food waste by half through investing in five key areas: 1. Invest in increasing productivity. 2. Support the enhancement of resiliency to climate change. 3. Support the mitigation of GHG emissions. 4. Support national and international climate change dialogue and action. 5. Measure and monitor the GHG footprint of Canadian agriculture. The CCA provided suggested avenues to accomplish these goals, including continuation of the Beef Science Cluster and further investment in programs that support research, innovation and knowledge transfer regarding practices that reduce the environmental footprint of beef production, and supporting the creation and further development of payment for ecosystem services programs. With the federal government’s commitment to carbon pricing, the CCA recommends agriculture be exempt from any carbon pricing scheme and assurances that special care be taken to correct the direct and indirect impacts. Canadian agriculture is already a global leader in sustainable production, and as our products are highly traded commodities, the CCA recommends that primary agriculture, and meat and food processing be exempt to mitigate potential competitiveness issues.

The CCA appeared before the House Agriculture Committee with perspective on the amendments to the Health of Animals Regulations: Transportation of Animals Act. Canadian research found that 99.95 per cent of animals on a longer haul of over four hours reach their destination injury free and 99.98 per cent of animals on a short haul less than four hours reach their destination injury free. Given the high prevalence of positive outcomes delivered by industry today, it is crucial that any regulatory change also contribute to real welfare improvements. We outlined aspects of the regulatory proposal of concern to industry. It is the CCA’s position that any regulatory change needs to be based on scientific evidence conducted under Canadian conditions, and, wherever possible, use outcome-based guidelines that focus on the animal. In April I also had the opportunity to meet with International Trade Minister François-Philippe Champagne in Ottawa as part of a roundtable session with Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance members. Export opportunities for Canadian agriculture and how the sector will continue to contribute to Canada’s economic growth were discussed. There was considerable conversation about the importance of implementing the trade agreements already negotiated with Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. For Europe, I reminded the minister that we must continue the efforts to resolve regulatory barriers to create genuine opportunity for Canadian beef exporters. I highlighted the need to remain vigilant in protecting our access to the U.S., the largest export market for Canadian beef and live cattle. The CCA supports the government’s strategy of engaging deeply with the U.S. to generate awareness of the value of the Canada-U.S. trade relationship, as this was key to achieving the repeal of U.S. country-of-origin labelling (COOL). Until next time. c Dan Darling is president of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Three export opportunities for forage producers By Trudy Kelly Forsythe

Export opportunities for forage producers are growing. Nicole Rogers, CEO of Agripocity, a Dubai-based company that connects Canadian farmers with the internationally-based buyers who use their crops, says producers need to determine what grows best on their land in terms of forage and then look at the global opportunities.

so committed to security of supply and continuity of supply that they will look at interesting arrangements with me? “If you can offer as a farm an arrangement that doesn’t involve a huge capital expenditure, I think, all the better,” she adds. “It’s just an awesome opportunity.”

SEED A third opportunity is seed for forage. “It’s not something that the big guys are really marketing, but because the animal feeding sector is growing globally, there’s an opportunity to sell Canadian intel and production on forage to countries like Ukraine where they can grow just as great a forage as us,” says Rogers. “There’s really good business in that.”

EQUINE A major opportunity for the high quality forage Canadian farmers can produce is the equine market, especially in the United Arab Emirates where they don’t have a domestic production market for feed. “Globally, there are a lot of big money players in equine,” says Rogers. “We want to teach farmers that equine feed can be a tight commercial story because the feed is converted directly into the profitability of the horse and we are really trying to teach our equine sector buyers that feed, and the pedigree of the feed, can impact the performance of the horse and then that means money.” Rogers recommends producers look at what grows really well on their land in terms of forage then look at what the global opportunities are for that. Also consider how to add more value to the hay, such as mixing together two or three crops that complement each other

CANADIAN FORAGE & GRASSLAND ASSOCIATION www.canadianfga.ca Ph: 506-260-0872

DAIRY

She admits it can take some time to scale up but over a five-year marketing program, a producer could easily work with a farm in another market and help grow their hay program. “We take for granted how good we are at growing hay and other crops here in Canada,” says Rogers.

The dairy market is another opportunity. Some of the big global dairies are investing in land in developed markets to cultivate their own dairy feed. “I urge all farmers to look at this kind of trend and say, if I figure out what the silver bullet is for dairy production in my part of the world, are there farms that are

Rogers will discuss the importance of crop marketing and crop future planning strategy on the farm including information on forage opportunities at the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association’s annual conference in Guelph, Ontario, Nov. 14 to 16.

Nicole Rogers to create a total mixed ration, and about the logistics, such as loading containers themselves.

LEARN MORE

 TH E IN DUST RY

NewsRoundup sustainability

Locking down feedlot ammonia emissions

Innovative research is reshaping what is known about ammonia and related emissions from feedlots. And that new knowledge may help the industry to adjust its management, shape and react to public policy more effectively. “Livestock are significant emission contributors,” says Dr. Sean McGinn of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, a long-time researcher in the emissions area. “We know beef feedlots are hot spots of ammonia emissions on the landscape, but we didn’t know as much about the dynamics of ammonia emissions from feedlots. For example, we didn’t have real numbers from actual feedlots on how much is emitted, how much is deposited on nearby soil and how much re-emission occurs when that happens.” That’s what McGinn and his colleague Dr. Tom Flesch at the University of Alberta set out to understand in a two-year project funded by the Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency. The other part of their research involves measuring methane and nitrous oxide, two prominent greenhouse gases. Methane is produced by cattle due to the anaerobic digestion of feed in the cow’s rumen and both nitrous oxide and methane come from stored manure in the pens. The research produced significant results on several fronts from techniques to measure emissions on a commercial scale, to new information on their affect on nearby land and opportunities for mitigation and management. One major outcome was the adaptation of oilfield technology to measure emissions using open path lasers that move over the feedlot and calculate emission concentrations and wind characteristics. They’re able to measure emissions regardless of wind direction. In place of older research protocols that place animals in chambers to measure emissions, McGinn says this new technique evaluates the feedlot as a whole. Also, by leaving animals in their natural

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

environment, the laser approach promises more accurate commercial scale results. This means actual feedlot emission numbers could be gathered for greenhouse gas assessments, an improvement from past practices of using estimates from global sources. One of the surprises learned from this study was the fact that a significant fraction of ammonia was deposited on the land adjacent to the feedlot and how much was re-emitted into the atmosphere. “Our results illustrate the dynamics of reactive ammonia in the vicinity of a beef cattle feedlot,” says McGinn. “It confirmed that a large portion of the nitrogen fed as crude protein is volatized from the feedlot’s cattle manure. In the local vicinity of a feedlot, both ammonia deposition (14 per cent of the emitted ammonia) and re-emission occurred. That 14 per cent is a large amount considering a typical feedlot emits one to two tonnes of ammonia per day.” The amount of this soil-captured ammonia decreased with distance from the feedlot by 50 per cent over 200 metres). Industry implications

Collectively, the results of this study provide insight into the dynamics of ammonia in the agricultural landscape and illustrate the need for ammonia mitigation to improve the environmental and economic sustainability of cattle feedlots. “We need better emissions numbers to anchor effective public policy and fairly represent the feedlot industry in that data pool,” says McGinn. “It’s important to have research done before policy is set. The U.S. cattle feeding industry already has specific ammonia emission targets in place.” Fortunately there are some promising results on new mitigation techniques to deal with methane and ammonia emissions coming out of a second study headed up by Dr. Karen Beauchemin and Dr. Karen Koenig at Agriculture and AgriFood Canada’s Lethbridge Research and Development Centre. Perhaps the most dramatic methane control option is a new product in the pipeline designed specifically to manage methane production in ruminants.

“Methane is lost energy and lost opportunity,” says Beauchemin. “The inhibitor 3-nitrooxypropanol (NOP) is a new compound synthetized by a company out of Switzerland specifically to control methane. A feed additive, it interferes with normal digestion process reducing the ability of rumen organisms to synthesize methane, shifting methane energy to a more usable form for the animal.” In their research, adding NOP to a standard diet reduced methane production by 40 per cent in backgrounding and finishing cattle. Trials have been done in commercial feedlots and it is moving into the registration channels in North America. “Obviously there are hoops to go through in registration and questions such as pricing and mode of use in the cow-calf sector that would affect industry uptake, but it is a very promising emission control alternative that could be available within three to five years,” says Beauchemin. Diet manipulation is also promising. For example, increasing the nutritional digestibility of forages through early harvesting increases animal efficiency and reduces methane emissions, says Beauchemin. “We’re also overfeeding protein in many cases which increases ammonia emissions,” says Koenig. “For example, distillers grains, a byproduct of the ethanol industry, are commonly fed in feedlots. But the nutrients are concentrated and when added to diets as an energy supplement, it often results in overfeeding protein, which increases ammonia emissions.” One new area of research that may mitigate that, she says, is using plant extracts such as tannins that bind the nitrogen in the animal’s gut and retain it in the manure more effectively to retain its value as fertilizer. “There are supplements on the market with these products in them already, but we are evaluating them in terms of ammonia and methane management.” Basically most things that improve efficiency in animal production reduce methane and ammonia production, say Beauchemin and Koenig. They emphasize that while forage does produce methane, forage is a complex system that must be considered as a whole ecosystem with many positive benefits.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

NEWS ROU NDUP

The biggest opportunity for improvement in methane emissions is in the cowcalf and backgrounding sector because the rations are highly forage-based. But the low hanging fruit and early research in emission management is focused on the feedlot and dairy sector because diets can be controlled more easily. So u rce : Me r i s te m In f o r m a t i o n Resources Ltd.

Feeding

Feedlots bouncing back

The feedlot sector in the West is growing again, according to the Canfax annual demographic survey of finishing feedlots in

Alberta and Saskatchewan with a minimum one-time bunk capacity of 1,000 head. As of January 1, 2017, there were 158 feedlots of that size on the Canfax list, which translates to eight more finishing lots than last year. As a consequence, the total bunk capacity in the two provinces has grown by 1,550 spots to a total of 1,421,950 head. The number of feedlot owners in the survey climbed to 133 from 127 in 2016. This is the second consecutive year that a small increase has been recorded in the annual survey, although the total capacity is still 19 per cent below the peak year of 2008. Alberta’s finishing capacity dropped by

10,950 head leaving bunk space for the province at 1,327,950 head. This is still 93.3 per cent of the western total but is also the lowest capacity for the province since this survey was first taken in 2000. The survey results came as a bit of a surprise following the decision by the owners of Western Feedlots Ltd. to stop buying cattle last year. Canfax senior analyst Brian Perillat says the Strathmore lot was closed before January 1, 2016, so the year-overyear loss from Western was only the one lot. A third lot still had cattle on feed at the start of this year. “Over the past year there has been a Continued on page 44

CRI IS ALL IN TO SERVE YOU!

The people delivering excellence with integrity and passion.

1AN01238 SAV RESOURCE 1441 REG. NO. 1707295 (CAN)

A subsidiary of Cooperative Resources International

1AR00946 BROWN JYJ REDEMPTION Y1334 Reg. No. 1720864 (CAN)

1SM00143 WS HIGH STAKES W115 Reg. No. 1137305 (CAN)

Genex Cooperative, Inc. 291 Woodlawn Road West, Guelph, ON cricanada@crinet.com CAN 888.354.4622

www.crinet.com

News Roundup STAMPEDE

By Jerry Palen

“It’s a bread sandwich. I told you we were out of everything.”

Continued from page 43

small resurgence of small to mid-size feedlots under 10,000 head that had previously switched to background in 2013-15 but are now finishing a larger portion of their cattle,” wrote Perillat in reporting the results of the annual survey. For the third year in a row Saskatchewan also recorded an increase in finishing capacity with its onetime capacity going up by 15 per cent for a total capacity of 94,000 head. The survey also covers some operational aspects as well, and Perillat says turn rates have generally been declining since 2014 for feedlots of all sizes. “This could be partly related to feeding cattle longer and growing them larger, as well as possibly more calves going directly to feedlots as Canadian cattle numbers have declined, and fall yearling supplies have tightened,” he says. For industry analyst Kevin Grier the more interesting question is what will happen to the feedlot sector this year. In the April 3 edition of his Canadian

Cattle Market Report, Grier notes the winding down of Western’s High River in a few months will remove 32,000 head from Alberta’s total capacity. Will enough smaller- to medium-sized backgrounding lots convert or expand their finishing capacity during the year to make up for this loss? The answer will probably lie with the profitability of feedlots in 2017. After losing more than an average of $200 per head last year, he says 2017 brought a welcome change to western feedlot operators based on Canfax data which reported annual profits of $200 per head in January and February, and well over $300 in March. “Looking at projected profits, however, the message turns negative again,” says Grier pointing to Canfax Trends models that show red ink on yearling steers in June and big losses on the few calves placed in the first part of this year. “The overall message is that the feedlot financial picture over the last couple of years, as well as this year, does not inspire confidence in expansion,” he says.

get the CANADIAN CATTLEMEN mobile APP NOW! Keep up to date on all the latest livestock news with the new Canadian Cattlemen mobile app! INSTANT ACCESS TO: • • • • • • • •

Livestock news Daily regional ag news Daily market news Commodity futures Crops news WeatherFarm data Machinery tips & reviews Plus much more!

IT’S FREE! Scan the code to get the app – or visit agreader.ca Available for Android devices, iPhones and iPad. Part of the

network

More great agricultural apps available! Sponsored by

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

NEWS ROUN DUP

management Should you preg check?

Really, should you preg check? That’s a question almost everyone in the cow business faces every fall. The advice from governments and veterinarians is generally yes, you should find out if the cows you are going to carry through the winter will give you a calf at the end of it. So why did 50 and 40 per cent of producers answer no to this question when it was put to them in sizable surveys on cow-calf management practices back in 1997-98 and 2013? The answer is, it depends on your feed costs this fall, the price for cull cows, your vet fees and a raft of other factors that play into each family’s operating plan at the time. There are a number of options. The big three are: preg check and cull the opens; preg check and feed the opens with the view of selling them in the new year when prices are generally higher; save on the preg check fees and cull the opens after calving season. Before you get into thinking too deeply about those choices you might want to look up a new factsheet The Economics of Preg Checking by the analysts at Canfax Research Services (sponsored by Merial). It can be found at canfax.ca/FactSheets.aspx. As they work through the decision, they made use of an economic model developed in 2015 by two University of Saskatche-

Skid power HD

Forestech

W 207

Agrimax Force Agrimax Force

There is a specific purpose behind every BKT tire, our strength lies in our extensive Off-Highway tire lineup. BKT tires are uniquely designed to provide you with the best performance outcome to meet all your needs.

BKT Tires (CANADA) Inc.

Continued on page 47

Earthmax SR 41

Tel: AG/IND 905-641-5636

AG/IND 604-701-9098

BKT Tires (CANADA) Inc. - Tel: AG/IND 905-641-5636 AG/IND 604-701-9098

AUG 15 - 17, 2017 AT THE BMO CENTRE ON STAMPEDE PARK, CALGARY, AB

Sharing

Common Ground

WITH KEYNOTE SPEAKER JON MONTGOMERY Interactive workshops, a tradeshow, market outlooks, and presentations PLUS excellent networking opportunities including a golf tournament and tour @CDNBeefConf

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

facebook.com/canadianbeefindustryconference

Images courtesy of Canadian Cattlemen’s • The Beef Magazine

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

STAMPEDE

APPLY FOR A CASH ADVANCE TODAY...

The Ultimate Livestock Water Bowl

Prime +0.0% on loans over $100,000.00 (floating rate)

There are 66,000 Cancrete Tanks in Feedyards & In Cow/Calf Ranches from Alberta to New Mexico Call: 866-789-3336 or go to www.cancrete.com

Call: 1-866-869-4008 to start your application**

SHORTHOR NS

CANADIAN HEREFORD ASSOCIATION

to improve marbling, feed conversion and add docility.

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

By Jerry Palen

ADVANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM - HIGHLIGHTS • $100,000 Interest Free • Over $100,000 to a maximum of $400,000* CASH ADVANCE FORMS AVAILABLE ONLINE At:

www.manitobalivestock.com Manitoba Livestock Cash Advance Inc.

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

More Efficient Means More Hereford LincoLn REds – The CompleTe Breed

Easy calving, easy handling, easy fleshing

“Well, if I was a mother, I’d like a new shovel.”

www.lincolnred.org

Make Your Decisions Profitable

Limousin Bank on the Carcass Breed

Canadian Limousin assoCiation

#13, 4101 – 19th Street N.E., Calgary, AB T2E 7C4 Phone: (403) 253-7309 Web site: www.limousin.com

Answer our survey — and have a go at winning one of our caps We have a goal to be the best beef cattle magazine in the business. But we need your help. If you could just fill in this survey and return it to me, you would be helping us set the future editorial direction for Canadian Cattlemen. All you have to do is tell me what you like about the magazine, and what you don’t like. There’s also some space for you to tell us what you would like to see in future issues. ClIp And EnCloSE youR MAIlIng lABEl. Each month, we will draw one name from all the surveys sent in and send that person a Cattlemen cap. It could be you!

MARKETPLACE

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

# of head

If not an owner/operator of a farm, are you:

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

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

 I no longer take an active part in farming

 c) 45 to 54

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

Regular Columns Straight from the Hip Prime Cuts CCA Reports

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

News Roundup Purely Purebred 3

The Markets 1 Market Talk Sales and Events Special features Calving Issue (Jan.) Custom Feedlot Guide (Sep.) Stock Buyers’ Guide (Aug.) Animal Health Special (Sep.) Beef Watch (May & Nov.)

Comment 5 4 3 2 1 Newsmakers Letters Our History Nutrition Vet Advice Research Free Market Reflections What would you like to see? __________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 1666 dublin Avenue How much time do you and your family spend reading Canadian Cattlemen?  Under 2 hours  Over 2 hours

Winnipeg, Man. R3H 0H1

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

N EWS ROUNDUP

Continued from page 45

wan veterinarians who were working on their masters in business administration and a preg-checking calculator available from the Beef Cattle Research Council (www.beefresearch.ca/economicmodel/pregnancydetection.cfm). The factsheet offers seven conclusions: • The higher your feed and overwintering costs the more favourable it is for preg-checking and culling cows in the fall. • Lower ADG favours preg-checking and fall culling. • While you may have low feed costs which make it look like it would be attractive to feed and sell in the spring, a minimal average daily gain on those animals offsets some of the advantage. • If cull cow prices drop to pre-2012 levels (below 75¢/lb.) the cost of overwintering begins to outweigh the benefits of selling heavier culls in the spring. • Higher cull cow prices favour overwintering. Lower prices encourage preg-checking. • Cow value is often a more important factor in the economics of preg-checking than either overwintering or veterinary costs. As cow prices have increased annually over the last decade, from 2003, preg-checking has not been economically beneficial and producers have seen the greatest benefit from overwintering cattle and selling at the higher price. • Declining prices encourage preg-checking and increasing prices discourage preg-checking. c

HOG HITH

FARM & RANCH EQUIPMENT Ltd

E OU TST

1974

RA ANDING B

♦

Hi-Hog Farm & Ranch Equipment Ltd.

The Outstanding Brand

2017

BUILT TO LAST

U-Frames with Gates

Panels

U-Spreaders

Overhead Frames w Gates

www.hi-hog.com www.canadiancattlemen.ca

AD E I N

Gates from 4’ to 20’ in length

1-800-661-7002

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

MARKETPLACE

Superior Panels & Gates

 NEWS ABOUT YOU

By Mike Millar

PurelyPurebred  The Don Matthews Memorial Award recognizing excellent service to the purebred beef cattle industry was posthumously presented to Gary Smith by the Canadian Beef Breeds Council during its annual meeting in Calgary. The award honours the late Don Matthews, a past president of the CBBC and member of the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame. Smith’s father was an early convert to Maine-Anjou cattle and Smith continued to breed Maines with his family at NuHaven Cattle Co. until his passing in 2015. In the early 1980s, while serving as president of the Canadian Maine-Anjou Association and the Alberta Cattle Breeds Association, he put a load of cattle together for a contact in Mexico and that one favour led to a lifetime in the export business. In the mid-1980s, he and Roger Peters created Prairie West Livestock and for five

Suggestions are always welcome. My phone number is 306-251-0011

years shipped animals to Mexico. In 1990 he created Canadian Livestock International and expanded his markets to Colombia, Brazil and China until he sold to Alta Genetics in 1994. Alta Genetics restructured in 1999 and Smith and two others formed Alta Exports International. After BSE was discovered in 2003, he worked with CFIA to create export protocols that would be achievable for Canadian exporters. In 2005, he organized a trip to Russia to promote Canadian cattle, followed in 2007 by the first shipment of 2,200 animals, and an even larger order to Kazakhstan in 2009. Smith also served as a director for Canadian Beef Breeds Council, and a steering committee member for the Alberta Livestock Marketing Agency.  On August 16, Dr. Matt Spangler of the University of Nebraska will be speaking

Email: mike.millar@ fbcpublishing.com

Sales results

Summit 3 Speckle Park Sale April 2, 2017, Ardrossan, Alta.

22 Extra-age bulls, av. $6,018.18 25.5 Yearling bulls, av. $5,323.53 1 1 Open heifers, av. $11,068.18 2 Lots of semen, av. $505/straw 6 Lots of embryos, av. $1,418.75/embryo 66.5 Lots, gross $436,575 Harvie Ranching 8th Annual Bull Sale March 14, Olds, Alta.

30 1 4.5 20 6 70.5

Charolais, av. $5,583 Hereford, av. $6,983 Simmental, av. $8,550 Sim/Angus, av. $5,083 Lots, av. $6,672

Want to know what’s next in agriculture? Watch This Country Called Agriculture and be informed. This Country Called Agriculture is a new on-demand

Start watching now at AGCanada.com/TCCA TCCA CURRENT EPISODES Sept 15 – 30 Ag for Life and ATCO Electric speaking about awareness and working safely around power lines

video series that delivers relevant news & information on the agriculture industry. Host Rob Eirich interviews ag pioneers, professionals and academics that oﬀer insight into today’s trends and what the future holds for agriculture – on and oﬀ the farm. Video topics include:  Sustainability  Starting a new farm

 Production and marketing

 New technology

 Exporting

 Food production  Ag innovations

 Alternative energy & fuel sources

 Renewable energy

 AND MORE

Brought to you by

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

PURELY PUREBRED

on the applications of genomics for commercial producers during the Bov-Innovations session at the second Canadian Beef Industry Conference (CBIC) in Calgary. The day before his Bov-Innovations session Spangler is scheduled to go a little deeper into the science and application of genomics at the Canadian Beef Breeds Council technical forum, a half-day session geared to CBBC stakeholders but open to all. A report on the research results funded by Genome Alberta is also on the schedule for the forum.  Speaking of the Canadian Beef Industry Conference, the registration desk opened last month for the second annual conference August 15-17 at the BMO Conference Centre in Calgary. You can register online at www.canadianbeefindustryconference.com.  Canadian Western Agribition (CWA) introduced its new leadership team during its annual meeting last month. Heading up the team is Bruce Holmquist of Saskatoon, the general manager of the Canadian Simmental Association who has

been involved with CWA for 40 years as a volunteer, director, executive director and now president. Over the years he has been deeply involved as a volunteer or chair of committees for the Rodeo, RBC Beef Supreme, Beef Cattle, Animal Health, High School Rodeo, and Prospect Steer and Heifer. Holmquist and his family farm at Kinistino, Sask. The other members of the executive are: vice-president Chris Lees, Arcola, Sask.; past president Stewart Stone, Regina; and executive members at large: Kim Hextall, Grenfell; Ross Macdonald, Lake Alma; and Bryce Thompson, Regina. The remaining members of the board are: Jodi Banks, Regina; Curtis Kuchinka, Regina; Michael Latimer, Calgary; Courtney MacDougall, Regina; Blake MacMillan, Nokomis, Sask.; Barry Young, Carievale, Sask.; Carla Borsa, Saskatoon; Doug Fee, De Winton, Alta.; Levi Jackson, Sedley, Sask.; Marty Kratochvil, Milden, Sask.; Jerry Flegel, City of Regina; Deborah Niekamp, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Kim Onrait, City of Regina; Grant Zalinko, Sask atchewan Ministry of Agriculture.

 As Simmental breeders across Canada celebrate the 50th anniversary of Parisien being imported into Canada in 1967, we need to remember the early importers and breeders that started the Simmental breed in Canada and made it strong. One of those breeders was Jim Asher and his wife Agnes of Bar A Simmentals. Jim was a herdsman at Lacombe Research Station where 12 head were imported into Canada in the spring of 1968. The four bulls imported were Pacific, Petunia, Quadrille, and Quartier, as well as a group of eight heifers. A breeding program was put together utilizing the import group and the results were some of the early bulls Simmental breeders will remember such as Adonis, Lacombe Achilles & Lacombe Ajax. Jim retired in 1970 and moved back to Saskatchewan starting a farm near Grandora. After seeing the success of Simmental cattle in Canada, he decided to apply for a permit and import his own Simmental animal. Jim and Agnes were successful in importing a Simmental female and the resultant heifer quite literally paid for the farm. Back in 1974, $45,000 was a lot of money. Continued on page 50

INTRODUCING NEW THEME DAYS WOMEN IN AG DAY

YOUNG FARMERS’ DAY

JUNE

WOMEN ATTENDEES RECEIVE 40% OFF GATE ADMISSION*

HERITAGE DAY Presented by

ATTENDEES UNDER 40 RECEIVE 40% OFF GATE ADMISSION*

ATTENDEES OVER 40 RECEIVE 40% OFF GATE ADMISSION* *Walk-up attendees only.

Stay up to date on all of this year’s new events and attractions by visiting myfarmshow.com. @canadafarmshow

June 21 - 23, 2017 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Regina, SK, Canada

INNOVATION

COLLABORATION

EDUCATION

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

PU R E LY PU R E B R E D

Continued from page 49

That was the start of the Ashers building a very successful Simmental herd. Over the years Agnes worked alongside Jim and was always a strong promoter of the Simmental breed along with their daughter Donna. Part of Agnes’s involvement was with the Simmental Belles, a group of ladies that worked together to improve and better the breed. When Jim passed away in 2000, Agnes and Donna kept on with the herd and it is still going strong on the same farm that Jim Asher started so many years before. Agnes retired and moved to town until April 5 when Agnes passed away at 102. As Canadian Simmental Association general manager Bruce Holmquist noted at the time, Canadian Simmental has lost a special lady and another of its pioneers. “I’m glad to call her my mother-in-law.”  The Canadian Simmental Association is urging producers to promote their Simmental calves at the auction mart or the pasture this year by purchasing the new CCIA tags with the Simmental blue back button available in bags of 25 for $78 and a box of 100 for $292. To order go to www.Canadaid.com or phone 1-877-909-2333.  The Canadian Simmental Association is creating an Award of Excellence Program to recognize the top Simmental bulls and females exhibited at shows across the country each year. Each provincial Simmen-

tal association is selecting two shows that qualify for the Award of Excellence Program. Bulls and females exhibited at these shows will be recognized through a point-based system that will be used to calculate Awards of Excellence honours. Contact the CSA office for details.  The 2017 National YCSA Classic will be hosted in Fredericton, N.B., August 10-13 this year in conjunction with the 2017 Canadian Simmental Association convention. Young Simmental members are being urged to watch for more details in the coming weeks so they don’t miss the opportunity to take part in this national youth event.  Canadian Western Agribition turned a profit of $745,852 from the 2016 show and generated $56 million in economic activity for Saskatchewan. Overall livestock sales were $2.9 million, the second-highest value in decades. International buyers did more business at the show last year than they’d done in the last four years combined. A number of other records were broken: trade show displays filled up more space than ever before, over 8,000 students attended the show through the registered education program, and ticketed events reached a record 25,000 in attendance. The completion of the new International Trade Centre this year holds out the promise of even better outcomes for the Regina-based livestock show this fall from November 20 to 25.

 Junior breed associations are always looking for ways to make money and the Canadian Junior Limousin Association is no exception. They have come up with a novel approach that other juniors are taking notice of. CJLA 1E shown above is the first animal to carry the CJLA prefix! She is a Hunt Credentials 37C heifer calf, born January 25, unassisted, at 70 lbs., 280-day gestation. Her dam, Limolyn Colette CLF 520C is the heifer calf that Lynn and Tyra Combest donated to the CJLA through their dispersal in 2015. She has developed into a gorgeous female with a picture perfect udder. A group of 16 CLA members came together and purchased the $8,000 heifer for the CJLA: B Bar Cattle, Anchor B Limousin, Eden Meadows Farm, Hollee Limousin, Venture Livestock, Richmond Ranch, Hillview Farms, Pinnacle View Limousin, Jones Cattle Co., Jaymarandy Livestock, Payne Livestock, J. Yorga Farms, Andrew Ranches, Greenwood Limousin, Carpenter Cattle Co., and Bee Zee Acres. The cow is managed by the members who purchased her and all the money generated from her progeny will go to the CJLA. c

bull Sale results MANITOBA bull test station sale — april 1

maritime beef testing society bull sale — april 1

DOUGLAS, man.

Number of lots sold

2016

2017

Breed

nappan, n.s.

Average price

Number of lots sold

2016

2017

2016

Black Angus

$3,985

$3,397

Blond d’Aquitaine

2,600

2,800

Limousin

4,636

3,181

Maine-Anjou

3,000

2,500

—

Salers

3,500

—

Shorthorn

3,400

3,700

Simmental

3,458

2,906

TOTAL

$3,856

$3,282

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

Breed

2017

Average price

2016

2017

Black Angus

$4,522

$4,214

Charolais

4,734

3,387

Gelbvieh

5,500

3,250

Hereford

2,537

2,500

—

Hybrid

—

2,750

Limousin

3,791

2,875

Red Angus

5,700

4,625

Salers

2,600

3,300

Simmental

5,308

3,018

TOTAL

$4,569

$3,336

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

 Market Su mma ry

By Debbie McMillin

TheMarkets Fed Cattle Tight front-end supplies through the first quarter of 2017 left packers reaching for inventory and prices rallied up to $174.40/cwt in Alberta by the end of March. April started off with a $3.50/ cwt drop to $170.89/cwt, which is still $4.39 above 2016. Then, just before Easter, grilling demand and light supplies combined to pull prices in Alberta back up to $172.08/cwt as packers filled their after-Easter orders. For the past month fed steers have traded above year-ago levels and the fed basis remained narrow, +$0.51/cwt at our deadline for this issue. Some cattle were pulled forward and marketed ahead of schedule, pushing steer slaughter to 333,826 head, up three per cent compared to last year, and heifers up eight per cent to 222,321 head. However, it’s the lower carcass weights that have shrunk meat production, and increased leverage in this market. Steer carcasses in the third week of April averaged 900 lbs. compared to 942 lbs. the same week in 2016. Exports of fed cattle were down two per cent to 81,705 head over the first three months of 2017. Cattle-on-feed numbers in Alberta and Saskatchewan on April 1 of 906,273 head were still four per cent below year-ago inventories, despite a 15 per cent increase in placements through March.

Feeder Cattle Strong demand for feeder cattle — fed by the interest in grass cattle, feedlot pens that needed filling and quality heifers needed for breeding — rallied prices across all weight classes over our reporting period for this issue. Lighter 550-lb. feeders added $23.39/cwt since the start of the year, to average $222.56/cwt but are still -$11.54/cwt below prices for the same weights in 2016. Heavier 850-lb. feeders entered the year on a down note until mid-February when www.canadiancattlemen.ca

the market turned. 850-lb. feeders have regained more than $11/cwt to the middle of April and closed out our reporting period averaging $171.21/cwt, still $11.82/cwt below last year. The strong fed basis has flowed down to feeder cattle prices with the 850-lb. feeder basis reaching record levels through the first quarter. It has softened some since then but at the end of our reporting period was sitting at -11.94/cwt, which is still more than $4/cwt stronger than last year. Feeder exports continue to slide by 31 per cent through the first quarter. Year-to-date, 42,435 head of feeder cattle have crossed the border.

Non-Fed Cattle D1,2 cows generally see a rally through the first quarter, and while it was a little late starting this year, we have certainly seen some seasonal strength in cow prices in recent weeks. Weekly average prices rose steadily over the past nine weeks to average $106.13 by mid-April, which is up $8.63/cwt since the start of the year, and more than $4/cwt better than last year. With D1,2 cows trading $10 above U.S. canner cows, exports have tumbled down 39 per cent to 135,688 head, and packers picked up some of the slack by slaughtering 135,688 or 14 per cent more cows than last year, but overall cow marketings are down year-todate. Butcher bulls dropped in recent weeks on lighter trade volumes. At deadline, slaughter bulls were averaging $123.22/cwt, which is $7/cwt under the year-ago average. Bull slaughter is up 25 per cent from a year ago at 4,103 head while exports are down 18 per cent to 10,985 head. c Debbie McMillin is a market analyst who ranches at Hanna, Alta.

 DE B’S OUTLOOK Fed Cattle Lighter carcass weights and seasonally small supplies as the yearling numbers dwindle and calves start to dominate the slaughter mix, plus the seasonal demand for middle meats as the BBQ season gets into full swing should hold the fed market up until the Father’s Day weekend. From then on look for a seasonally lower trend into the summer months as the volume of market-ready calves picks up. Feeder Cattle Near-term buyer competition should hold feeder cattle prices fully steady-to-stronger, with quality replacement heifers attracting premiums from ranchers looking to expand. Exports have been small year-to-date; however, the basis has widened and the dollar remains weak, which might create an export floor and increase U.S. interest moving forward. Seasonally tighter supplies will continue to support this market. Non-Fed Cattle Grilling demand coupled with tightening nonfed cattle supplies are supportive to this market. D1,2 cow price highs generally come in the second quarter. Last year, cow prices remained steady throughout the summer and barring any weather-related sell-offs, 2017 is setting a similar path. Lighter volumes may keep packers reaching and prices relatively strong before the fall run starts.

More markets  C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7 51

M A R K ETS

Break-even Prices on A-Grade Steers

340

210 ALBERTA

190

(500-600 lb.)

250

150

220

130

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

210

ONTARIO

190

160

150

100

130

Canfax weighted average price on A-Grade steers

Break-even price for steers on date sold

2017 2016

April 2017 prices* Alberta Yearling steers (850 lb.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $168.62/cwt Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.61/bu. Barley silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.13/ton Cost of gain (feed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.14/cwt Cost of gain (all costs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.97/cwt Fed steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171.11/cwt Break-even (September 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136.15/cwt Ontario Yearling steers (850 lb.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $170.03/cwt Corn silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.64/ton Grain corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.58/bu. Cost of gain (feed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.01/cwt Cost of gain (all costs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106.40/cwt Fed steers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157.89/cwt Break-even (October 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144.58/cwt *Mid-month to mid-month prices Breakevens East: end wt 1,450, 183 days West end wt 1,325 lb., 125 days

D1,2 Cows

140 120

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

160

170

110

Steer Calves

310 280

170

110

Market Prices

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

Ontario

Alberta

2017 2016

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

Market Summary (to April 8, 2017) 2017

2016

Total Canadian federally inspected slaughter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695,938. . . . . . . . . . 650,554 Average steer carcass weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913 lb.. . . . . . . . . . . . 939 lb. Total U.S. slaughter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,777,000. . . . . . . . 8,260,000

Trade Summary Exports 2017 2016 Fed cattle to U.S. (to April 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81,705.. . . . . . . . . . . 83,342 Feeder cattle and calves to U.S. (to April 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,435.. . . . . . . . . . . 61,500 Dressed beef to U.S. (to February) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.35 mil.lbs.. . . . . . .87.51 mil.lbs Total dressed beef (to February). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109.26 mil.lbs.. . . . . 114.95 mil.lbs IMPORTS 2017 2016 Slaughter cattle from U.S. (to February) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 *Dressed beef from U.S. (to February) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.00 mil.lbs. . . . . . . .37.75 mil.lbs *Dressed beef from Australia (to February) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15 mil.lbs. . . . . . . 19.59 mil.lbs *Dressed beef from New Zealand (to February) . . . . . . . . . . 5.16 mil.lbs. . . . . . . . 8.86 mil.lbs *Dressed beef from Uruguay (to February) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.55 mil.lbs. . . . . . . 11.50 mil.lbs Canadian Grades (to April 15, 2017) % of A grades +59% 54-58% AAA 0.2 0.5 AA 17.5 24.2 A 17.7 9.2 Prime 1.1 0.2 Total 34.1 36.5 EAST WEST

Total graded 176,990 548,933

Yield – 53% Total 1.5 2.2 22.6 64.3 3.9 30.8 0.0 1.3 28.0 Total A grade 98.6%

Total ungraded 13,597 5,267

% carcass basis 82.4% 84.3% Only federally inspected plants

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

 market ta l k

By Jerry Klassen

The Barley Outlook

t’s that time of year when I receive many calls from cattle producers with regard to the price outlook for feed barley. This past winter, feed barley in southern Alberta has readily traded in the range of $155/mt to $165/mt delivered, while values in central Alberta are usually a $10/mt discount. The 2016-17 crop year was rather unique in that many finishing operations were using a fair amount of feed wheat or feed durum in the rations. Extreme rains last summer caused a large portion of the western Canadian wheat crop to contain high levels of vomitoxin. The world was awash with feed wheat this past year making it difficult to move this lower-quality wheat offshore; therefore, farmers had limited options and had to sell into the domestic feed market. However, looking forward, there are a number of variables that will influence the price of feed grains in Western Canada. I thought this would be a good time to discuss some of the risk factors that will influence the barley market for the 2017-18 crop year. To start off, the Canadian barley ending stocks for 2016-17 will likely finish near 2.4 million mt, which is above the 10-year average carry-out of 1.7 million mt. A carry-out above the 10-year average usually results in prices under the 10-year average, which we’ve seen this past winter. Statistics Canada will release their first indications of seeded acreage on April 21, after our press deadline. This provides a starting point to estimate production and the fundamental structure. As I write this, acreage is a large uncertainty with some analysts calling for a year-over-year decline in acreage while others are suggesting acreage could increase. I’ve attached a supply and demand table below. I will discuss three potential case studies by varying the acreage and the potential price outlook for each. The first case incorporates a year-over-year decline in acreage of 10 per cent. Using an average yield of 65 bushels per acre, production would finish near 7.3 million mt. Without going into details of the demand, the overall carry-out would finish near 1.7 million mt which would be similar to the 10-year average. This would be considered a slightly bullish scenario with Lethbridge values expected to trade in the range of $190/mt to $210/mt delivered during the 2017-18 crop year. The second case uses an acreage base of 6.4 million, which is the same as last year. Using an average yield, production would finish near 8.2 million mt and the carry-out would come in at 2.3 million mt. This would be considered a neutral outlook from current levels as supplies would remain above the 10-year average. The final case study uses a 10 per cent increase in acreage causing production to surge to 9.0 million mt. In this scenario, the carry-out would swell to 2.9 million mt and it would be considered bearish from current price levels. Over the past few years, Canadian feed barley prices have been highly correlated with the U.S. corn market. Despite limited imports from south of the border, the corn market tends to influence the world feed grain complex. On March 31, the USDA estimated U.S. corn acres at 90.0 million, down from 94 million www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Supply and disposition of Canadian barley (’000 tonnes) StatsCan StatsCan 14/15 15/16

10-year average

Estimate 16/17

Case 1 17/18

Case 2 17/18

Case 3 17/18

Acres seeded

5,880

6,527

7,828

6,390

5,751

6,400

7,029

Acres harvested

5,279

5,812

6,985

5,492

5,176

5,760

6,326

Yield (bu./ac.)

61.90

73.40

Opening stocks Aug. 1

1,950

1,217

1,862

1,442

2,411

Production

7,115

8,226

9,080

8,784

7,325

8,152

8,953

SUPPLY

Imports TOTAL SUPPLY

136

134

9,200

9,577

10,996

10,286

1,675

1,183

1,503

1,150

9,796 10,623 11,424

USE Exports

1,200

1,400

1,600

Seed

228

223

268

225

Human food/industrial/1

1,023

993

972

1,000

Feed-waste-dockage

5,057

5,736

6,570

5,500

5,700

TOTAL USE

7,983

8,135

9,313

7,875

8,125

8,325 8,525

TOTAL CARRY-OVER

1,217

1,442

1,683

2,411

1,671

2,298 2,899

1/includes barley processed domestically and then exported as malt. **10-year average is 2007 through 2016.

last year. The fact that acres are below year-ago levels will make the feed grain complex extremely sensitive to growing conditions, especially during the key pollination season during July. The sharp year-over-year increase in South American production will lower export demand for U.S. corn. This takes some of the upside potential off the corn market even if adverse conditions materialize. However, the corn market will have limited downside in the short term until the crop is more certain and I’m expecting the corn market to incorporate a risk premium during the summer due to the uncertainty in production. Cattle producers also have to remember at this stage, analysts factor in a normal quality wheat crop whereby 80 per cent of the wheat grades in the top two milling categories, limiting the amount for feed. In conclusion, feeder cattle prices have been supported by lower feed grain costs in Canada and the U.S. Strength in barley and corn values will weigh on the feeder cattle market. My bias is that we’ll see slightly stronger barley prices in the upcoming crop year. Lower feed wheat production and the potential for a tighter corn fundamental structure will be supportive for Canadian barley values. c Jerry Klassen manages the Canadian office of Swiss-based grain trader GAP SA Grains and Produits Ltd., and is president and founder of Resilient Capital specializing in proprietary commodity futures trading and market analysis. Klassen consults with feedlots on risk management and writes a weekly cattle market commentary. He can be reached at 204-504-8339.

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

 GOINGS ON

Sales&Events Events May

11-14 LMAC 38th Annual Meeting and Convention, at Perlich Bros. Auction Mart, Lethbridge, Alta. 25-27 British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association annual meeting, Coast Kamloops Hotel and Convention Centre, Kamloops, B.C.

June

1 Carcass 101, Olds, Alta. 8-11 Canadian Angus Association National Convention, Brandon, Man. 9-10 Canadian Charolais Association, annual general meeting, Saskatoon Inn, Saskatoon, Sask. 12-14 Foothills Forage and Grazing Association three-day grazing school, Gem, Alta. 19-20 T Bar C 10th annual golf tournament, Saskatoon, Sask. 20 Western Beef Development Centre field day, Termuende Ranch, Lanigan, Sask. 21-26 World Angus Forum, Edinburgh, Scotland 22-23 UCVM Beef Cattle Conference, “Raising Healthy Beef Cattle in a Changing World,” Calgary, Alta.

July 6-9

uebec Junior Simmental Beef Show, Q Brome, Que. 7-16 Calgary Stampede, Calgary, Alta. 17-21 Canadian Junior Hereford Bonanza 2017, Abbotsford, B.C. 18-20 Ag in Motion Outdoor Farm Show, Langham, Sask. 20-22 Canadian Junior Angus Association National Junior Show Showdown 2017, Lloydminster, Sask. 20-23 Alberta Wild Rose Simmental Classic, Lacombe, Alta. 27-30 15th Annual Canadian Junior Limousin Impact Show, Portage la Prairie, Man. 29 48th Annual Canadian Limousin Association annual general meeting, Portage la Prairie, Man.

August 1-5

S askatchewan YCSA Tiger Lily Classic, Prince Albert, Sask. 2-6 Canadian Charolais Youth Association Conference and Show, Barrie, Ont. 4-6 Manitoba Youth All Breeds Beef Roundup, Neepawa, Man. 10-13 National YCSA Simmental Show and Canadian Simmental Convention, Fredericton, N.B.

15-17 Canadian Beef Industry Conference, BMO Conference Centre, Calgary, Alta.

September

5-7 B eef Farmers of Ontario Cow-Calf Roadshow, New Liskeard, Ont. 12-14 Canada’s Outdoor Farm Show, Woodstock, Ont.

October

25-28 Manitoba Ag Ex, Brandon, Man.

November 1-4

J TL Industries Stockade Roundup, Exhibition Grounds, Lloydminster, Alta. 14-16 Canadian Forage & Grassland Association Conference, Delta Guelph Hotel and Conference Centre, Guelph, Ont.

December 5-7

estern Canada Conference on Soil W Health, Radisson Hotel Edmonton South, Edmonton, Alta. c

 Event listings are a free service to industry.  Sale listings are for our advertisers. Your contact is Mike Millar at 306-251-0011 or mike.millar@fbcpublishing.com

 ADVERTIS ER I ND EX Page Advanced Agri-Direct Inc. 46 Advantage Feeders 47 Ag Growth International 15 Airdrie Trailer Sales 47 Alberta Vet Labs 11 Beef Cattle Research Council 45 BKT Tires Canada Inc. 45 Boehringer Ingelheim 35 Brett Young Seeds Ltd. IBC Canada’s Farm Progress Show 49 Canadian Angus Assoc. 39, 46 Canadian Charolais Assoc. OBC Canadian Forage & Grassland Assoc. 41 Canadian Galloway Assoc. 27 Canadian Hereford Assoc. 46 Canadian Limousin Assoc. 46 Canadian Shorthorn Assoc. 46 Canadian Simmental Assoc. 21 Canadian Speckle Park Assoc. 46 Case-IH 8, 9 Ford Motor Company Canada 5 Genex Cooperative 43 Hi-Hog Farm & Ranch 47 Lakeland Group/Northstar 12 a-p Manitoba Livestock Cash Advance Inc. 46 Merial Canada Inc. IFC, 17 North American Lincoln Red 46

C a t t l e m e n · MAY 2 0 1 7

Canadian Western Agribition board of directors. Back row (l to r): Michael Latimer, Blake MacMillan, Jodi Banks, Barry Young, Marty Kratochvil, Doug Fee, and Curtis Kuchinka. Middle row (l to r): Grant Zalinko, Jerry Flegel, Stewart Stone (past president), Courtney MacDougall, Carla Borsa, and Levi Jackson. Front row (l to r): Ross Macdonald (member at large), Kim Hextall (member at large), Bruce Holmquist (president), Chris Lees (vice-president), and Bryce Thompson (member at large).

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

WE HAVE BETTER WAYS TO BLEND HIGHPERFORMANCE FORAGE.

A BrettYoung high-performance forage blend keeps your herd healthy and productive and is backed by an industry-leading establishment guarantee. For best selection and early season discounts visit your local seed supplier today.

brettyoung.ca/forage BrettYoungâ&#x201E;¢ is a trademark of Brett-Young Seeds Limited. 2312 01.17