canadian cattleman magazine

Transcription

CONTROLLING CANADA THISTLE • HAVE FENCER WILL TRAVEL • BEEF WATCH
www.canadiancattlemen.ca
COUNTING ON
FORAGE
AARON IVEY, ITUNA, SASK.
Publications Mail Agreement Number 40069240
May 2013
$3.00
Canadian Angus Association
142, 6715 – 8 Street NE
Calgary, AB T2E 7H7
Phone: 1-888-571-3580
www.cdnangus.ca
email: [email protected]
Cut along the dotted line...
Cut along the dotted line...
Registration
* To attend the entire Convention, June 5-10, please visit
www.cdnangus.ca/members/agm.htm
Farm/Business: _____________________________________________________
Attendee Name: ____________________________________________________
Additional Attendee: ________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________________
City: ____________________________Prov: _________Postal Code: __________
Telephone: _______________________Fax: ______________________________
E-mail: ____________________________________________________________
Friday, June 7
Rancher Endorsed Day (lunch & dinner included)________ X $50.00 = $ ___________
Total Amount Enclosed $ _____________
May 2013
Volume 76, No. 6
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: [email protected]
Field Editor: Debbie Furber
Box 1168, Tisdale, SK S0E 1T0
(306) 873-4360
Fax (306) 873-4360
FEATURES
Have fencer, will travel................................................. 10
More yep.......................................................................... 13
Controlling canada thistle in pastures....................... 14
Advertising Sales:
Deborah Wilson
RR 1, Elnora, AB T0M 1K0
(403) 325-1695
Fax (204) 944-5562
Head Office:
1666 Dublin Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3H 0H1
(204) 944-5765
Fax (204) 944-5562
Counting on forage....................................................... 18
Advertising Services Co-ordinator:
Arlene Bomback
(204) 944-5765
Fax (204) 944-5562
Grazing cattle biggest methane emitter. .................... 22
Publisher: Lynda Tityk
There is more to grazing than meets the eye.............. 26
A new sainfoin to ward off bloat. ................................ 30
Beef watch....................................................................... 33
Verified beef production................................................ 37
Departments
22
COMMENT............................................... 4
NEWSMAKERS......................................... 5
LETTERS.................................................. 5
NUTRITION............................................ 24
VET ADVICE.......................................... 28
RESEARCH............................................ 32
CCA REPORTS...................................... 38
HOLISTIC RANCHING.............................. 39
PRIME CUTS......................................... 40
STRAIGHT FROM THE HIP...................... 42
NEWS ROUNDUP................................... 43
PURELY PUREBRED............................... 48
THE MARKETS...................................... 51
MARKET TALK....................................... 53
SALES & EVENTS.................................. 54
“Congratulations to our
May sur vey winner,
David Wagman, Leader, Sask.
This month’s sur vey
is on page 44.”
Production Director: Shawna Gibson
Circulation Manager: Heather Anderson
President: Bob Willcox
Glacier Media Agricultural Information Group
Contents of C attlemen are copyrighted and may be
reproduced only when written permission is obtained from
the editor and proper credit is given to Cattlemen.
Cattlemen and Canadian Cattlemen are Trade Marks of Farm
Business Communications.
Cattlemen is published monthly (with the exception of July
and 2 issues in Februar y and October) by Farm Business
Communications. Head of fice: Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Printed by Transcontinental LGMC. Cattlemen is printed
with linseed oil-based inks.
Subscription rates in Canada — $36.75 for one year,
$55 for 2 years, $99 for 3 years (prices include GST).
Manitoba residents add 7% PST. U.S. subscription rate —
$35 (U.S. funds). Subscription rate outside Canada and
U.S. — $55 per year. Single copies $3.
We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of
Canada through the Canada Periodical Fund
of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Publications Mail Agreement Number 40069240.
Canadian Postmaster: Return undeliverable Canadian
addresses (covers only) to: Circulation Dept., PO Box 9800,
Winnipeg, MB R3C 3K7.
U.S. Postmaster: Send address changes and undeliverable
addresses (covers only) to: Circulation Dept., PO Box 9800,
Winnipeg, MB R3C 3K7.
PRINTED IN CANADA
Circulation inquiries:
Call toll-free
1-800-665-1362
or email: [email protected]
U.S. subscribers call 1-204-944-5766
Member
LIVESTOCK
PUBLICATIONS
COUNCIL
Our cover photo by
Debbie Furber.
Our commitment to your privacy
At Farm Business Communications we have a firm commitment to protecting your privacy and security as our customer. Farm Business Communications
will only collect personal information if it is required for the proper functioning of our business. As part of our commitment to enhance customer service,
we may share this personal information with other strategic business partners. For more information regarding our Customer Information Privacy Policy,
write to: Information Protection Officer, Farm Business Communications, 1666 Dublin Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3H 0H1.
Occasionally we make our list of subscribers available to other reputable firms whose products and services might be of interest to you. If you would
prefer not to receive such offers, please contact us at the address in the preceding paragraph, or call 1-800-665-1362.
Associate Publisher/Editorial Director: John Morriss
The editors and journalists who write, contribute and provide opinions
to Canadian Cattlemen and Farm Business Communications attempt to
provide accurate and useful opinions, information and analysis. However,
the editors, journalists, C anadian C attlemen and Farm Business
Communications, cannot and do not guarantee the accuracy of the
information contained in this publication and the editors as well as
Canadian Cattlemen and Farm Business Communications assume no
responsibility for any actions or decisions taken by any reader for this
publication based on any and all information provided.
Cattlemen / may 2013 3
c o m m e n t
by Gren Winslow
Straw man gets a pass
Efforts to
find a
national
strategy for
beef find
approval
S
o now we wait to see how the country-oforigin-labelling (COOL) debacle will play
out. The comment period has closed and
USDA must decide if it will thumb its nose
at the WTO and push through a new rule opposed
by everyone in the meat trade other than the usual
suspects who support any policy that hampers
imports of Canadian beef and cattle.
In the meantime Minister Gerry Ritz prepares
his billion-dollar list of punishing tariffs and
everyone else looks for ways to avoid losses that
are sure to follow if the Americans add more teeth
to COOL.
Maybe we are ready for a straw man strategy?
Last issue I noted some Albertans were ready
to roll out their response to a Canadian AgriPolicy Institute (CAPI) report that Canada was in
danger of becoming a net importer of beef if the
industry didn’t get its act together.
Three well-known Albertans, John Kolk, Dave
Andrews and Kim McConnell decided to take up
CAPI’s challenge. With some seed money from the
Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency they started
asking everyone from cattle producers to retailers
what a Canadian beef strategy should look like.
Then they boiled these ideas down into a “straw
man” version and invited the industry to kick it
around to see if it would hold up.
At two meetings in Calgary and Ontario most
of the heavyweights turned up. In total something
over 100 people were involved which doesn’t
sound like a lot except that they represented
national and provincial cattle associations, cattle
feeders, breeders, packers, processors, retailers
and each provided input through electronic voting
as they went through the details.
The straw man plan is based on the premise
that the Canada Beef Advantage is real. We have
the cattle, the people and the structure to competitively produce grain-fed beef that consumers
demand, but we need to make Canadian beef the
No. 1 choice for consumers in this country and
select export markets. To do that the entire industry needs to back this brand.
Sounds good. But how exactly do you pull it
off in the real world?
The straw man offers five recommendations:
First, we need a computerized information
highway accessible to all that protects privileged
data but allows for the free flow of information
between co-operating businesses be they cow-calf,
feedlot, packer or retailer. Information can be
4 Cattlemen / May 2013
a powerful tool if everyone from big to small is
committed to using the same vehicle and talking
the same language.
Second, establish a core set of industry goals
and objectives and standardized performance
measurements to mark our progress in meeting
them and point out areas that need research or
improvement. Ultimately the same numbers could
be used to validate the Canadian Beef Advantage
with consumers.
Third, report back to the industry twice a year
on how it is doing in terms of meeting its goals.
Fourth, agree on an industry-wide funding formula for Canada Beef Inc. (CBI) drawing on more
than producer checkoffs and government funds.
CBI does not sell beef — packers and exporters do
that — but CBI will be the one making consumers
aware of the Canadian Beef Advantage, and that
takes financial muscle.
Fifth, agree on one voice for the industry. This
is currently an industry with many voices and
many messages that only creates confusion in
the marketplace, making it hard to improve the
strength of a brand.
When it got down to the discussion and voting
there was an amazingly strong consensus that yes,
something needs to be done, and that a national
industry strategy is a good idea. Remember, these
are the people who are currently running the bus
for the industry. So the fact that so many of them
believe a change is needed came as something of a
shock.
The old ways showed up once when the western participants were asked if they felt the industry was ready to work collectively on these issues.
Only 32 per cent said yes, 16 per cent said no
and 52 per cent weren’t sure. In the East 97 per
cent said yes to the same question. Perhaps their
experience with the corn-fed beef in Ontario has
shown them what can be done when people work
together. Nearly half of the Ontario slaughter is
earmarked for this program now that Loblaws
has picked it up.
Otherwise the straw man trio received a strong
endorsement to keep this ball rolling by soliciting some extra help from within the industry to
flesh out these five recommendations and then call
another pair of meetings in the fall.
Even if nothing comes of it, the fact that it
brought the big players into one room to find a
better way to work together for everyone’s benefit
is quite an accomplishment.
NEWSMAKERS
Angus breeder
David Bolduc has
been elected president
of the Canadian Beef
Breeds Council as the
all-breeds organization is undergoing
a substantial makeover. The board of
David Bolduc
directors has been
trimmed from 24, with every breed
represented, to an elected group of
nine, “who must put breed bias aside
and make policy decisions for the seedstock sector as a whole,” says a CBBC
release. An international marketing
plan has already been implemented
and “significant” sales are being
reported. A new communications program is in the works.
Kevin France is the
new forage crops specialist with the Saskatchewan Ministry
of Agriculture based
in Regina. Originally
from Coldstream,
B.C. he has a masters
degree in rangeland
ecology and manageKevin France
ment at Oregon State
University and spent eight years with
the Alberta Department of the Environment before moving to Saskatchewan.
Barbara Larson is the new policy
analyst at the Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association. A professional
agrologist, she has worked with SGS,
LETTERS
Community gives back
This winter, my family and I undertook a project together. The project was
born of two kids’ hope that their small
actions could produce huge results.
They could never have known how far
that hope would go.
As in many other towns and cities
across the nation, the schools in our
city remember Terry Fox annually with
the Terry Fox Run. When our boys,
Cole, seven and Jake, five participated
in the run this year, curiosity was ignited
Cargill and the Farm Leadership
Council and is a director for the Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Society.
Reed Andrew of Regina is the new
president of the Canadian Western Agribition board of directors. He has been
an Agribition volunteer for 35 years and
a longtime supporter of the commercial cattle show. The remaining members of the executive are vice-president
Stewart Stone of Regina, past president
Bryan Hadland from Weldon, Sask.,
and members at large Bruce Holmquist
of Kinistino, Curtis Kuchinka and
Bryce Thompson of Regina. Directors elected to the board for a two-year
term include: Barry Young, Carievale;
Blake MacMillan, Nokomis; Richard
Harries, Regina; Bob Jackson, Sylvania
and Courtney MacDougall, Regina.
The Saskatchewan Stock Growers
Association will celebrate its 100th
anniversary of service to the Saskatchewan beef industry at the Moose Jaw
Exhibition Grounds June 9-11 with a
combined general annual meeting and
conference, a traditional ranch rodeo
and barn dance concluding with a gala
anniversary banquet. Details are available at http://skstockgrowers.com/.
Canada Beef Inc. has applied to
Farm Products Council of Canada
for the power to invoice importers
directly for the national checkoff on
imported beef using data provided by
the Canada Border Services Agency.
CBI administers the national checkoff
and already has the power to implewithin them and our family began a
month-long journey to learn more about
Terry Fox and about cancer. When it
seemed that every question had been
asked, and every stone uncovered in
their young minds, the discussion took
another turn. The boys wondered if cancer could affect children, and then if
even children could die from the disease. Many more discussions later, they
declared that they must do something to
help those kids affected by this devastating disease. And then, they did what
all kids do when confronted with an
idea bigger than them; they asked their
grownups for help.
So began a search for a children’s
cancer charity that would welcome the
ment an import levy. The problem has
been finding an economical way to collect it. Sources within CBI say it could
be several months yet before a revised
levy order is approved.
Beef cattle researcher Dr. Karen
Schwartzkopf-Genswein of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
in Lethbridge was
presented with the
Alberta Farm Animal Care Award of
Distinction for Innovation in recognition of her work on
animal welfare standards and reducing
Dr. Karen
Schwartzkopftransport stress in
Genswein
farm animals at the
group’s 2013 Livestock Care Conference in Calgary.
Timothy Sargent is the recently
appointed associate deputy minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
after a stint as acting deputy secretary to the cabinet in the Privy Council
Office. He replaces Claude Carrière
who retired after a 33-year career in
government.
Dr. Lysa Porth has been appointed
to fill the inaugural Guy Carpenter
Professorship in Agriculture Risk Management and Insurance recently established in the Asper School of Business
at the University of Manitoba. Porth
was previously an assistant professor
of statistics and actuarial science at the
University of Waterloo.
C
efforts of little ones, and that they could
be integrally involved with. After some
researching, we chose The Kids Cancer Care Foundation of Alberta and
the Shave Your Lid for a Kid program.
Through the program, our family would
raise funds for kids’ cancer research,
summer camps, and scholarship programs. Our goal was to raise $10,000
in exchange for our four bald heads.
So began a seven-week journey to
raise money and awareness for children’s cancer in our community. Cole
and Jake took the helm, giving presentations to their classrooms, at church, and
on the school news about their plans to
Continued on page 6
CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013 5
Continued from page 5
raise money and to talk about the charity they were supporting. We spoke with
friends and family about our plans, and
through them, and the countless strangers and acquaintances we met along the
way, heard endless stories of hope, grief,
loss, and tragedy. It seemed that everyone we met had been touched by the
devastating reality of cancer in the life
of a child or someone else close to him
or her. We were encouraged and humbly inspired by these stories and by the
bravery of those battling for their lives,
and were spurred on to do even more,
to spread the word as far as we could.
As we neared the end of our fundraising campaign, we began to worry that
we would not reach our goal. Our family,
friends, and community members had
given generously, but we were still only
75 per cent of the way to our goal. And
then a breakthrough happened!
Soderglen Ranches Ltd. is a ranch
located just outside of Airdrie, and
through our fundraising efforts became
aware of what our family was doing.
As soon as they heard our story, they
offered to help. This help would come
in the form of a donated bull at their
annual bull sale, scheduled to happen
days before our fundraising deadline.
We were overjoyed! Such a generous
pledge to our efforts would get us to
our $10,000 goal! Little did we know,
that was only the beginning!
As the day of the sale approached,
we got news that not only would
Soderglen donate the proceeds from
the sale of the bull, but the ranch owners, Mr. and Mrs. Stan and Jane Grad,
would donate additional money on
the day of the sale if members of their
crew and sale participants would shave
their heads in support of children’s
cancer as well!
Sale day arrived, and we were
thrilled as we watched “our bull” sell
for $12,500 (many thanks to auctioneer Dan Steele)! And then, as the day
came to a close, we watched as friends
and neighbours of the ranch lined
up to have their heads shaved bald
that very day. When all was said and
done, Soderglen Ranches Ltd. wrote a
cheque to the Kids Cancer Care Foundation for $25,000!
We explained what had happened to
our kids with tears in our eyes, and Cole
asked, “but Mom, is that enough — is
that enough for the kids with cancer?”
You see, they don’t have a good
grasp of the enormity of this generosity. They can’t contemplate that
amount of money (we chose $10,000
as our initial goal because the boys
were sure that was the “most money
in the whole world”). However, what
they did feel that day, what every
person in the room was profoundly
affected by, was the spirit of giving
and hope that prevailed.
We love this community. We love
agriculture and being involved in the
agriculture industry. But sometimes,
we forget why we love it so much.
There are hardships. A lot of them.
Times can get tough, and the world
can look like a very dark place. But,
we teach our kids that in the darkness
there is always light. In fact, where
there is darkness, we have a choice to
let it swallow us up, or be the light
that is so desperately needed. In the
caring and generous spirit of our community and of businesses like Soderglen Ranches, we see that light. We are
so thankful to be a part of that, and
we are so thankful for all of the caring, hopeful, and generous communities in this great land of ours.
When the day came to shave our
heads bald, we had raised over $35,500
for children’s cancer… and all because
two little boys listened to a whisper in
their hearts telling them to help. That’s
the kind of place we live in. It’s a good
place, with good people, of that we can
rest our hats, and be proud!
Michelle Irvine,
Airdrie, Alta.
It could happen here
In the “Vet Advice” article (April edition) by Dr Clarke titled “Could it happen here?” the author raised some valid
points which I think should give cause
for reflection in Canadian beef circles. The real scandal in Europe
is not that horse meat has been
passed off as beef but that elements
within the meat rearing, processing and
retailing sectors have once again shortchanged the consumer in pursuit of a
fast buck. But how much better are we in
Canada at supplying our domestic
consumers with a product they want
to eat and trust? The rapidly growing trend of consumers buying direct
from ranchers so they can access beef
free of hormone implants, antibiotics,
intensive grain feeding and feedlot confinement tells me the consumer already
has some concerns over their beef supply. Consumer confidence was likely
damaged somewhat by Canadian BSE
cases but considerably more so by the
recent XL Foods E. coli contamination incident. As if this wasn’t enough
cause for concern we have further
increased the potential for a large scale
consumer confidence crisis in beef by
the almost universal adoption of the
the beta-antagonist Ractopamine in the
feedlots. I’m sure it’s only a matter of
time before inquisitive consumers (and
mainstream media looking for a scandal) discover the information widely
available on the Internet regarding this
drug and it’s American cousin Zilmax.
They will be able to read of it’s negative effect on beef quality and alleged
negative effects on human health that
has caused it to be banned in 160 countries. I don’t think they will be very
understanding of the fact that the only
benefit of this product is something like
a $30 saving at feedlot level and $60 at
packer level. Just like in Europe the consumer
is being short-changed in pursuit of a
fast buck. So in answer to the question
I would say “Yes — “it” definitely
could happen here if the “it” is a scandal leading to a collapse in consumer
confidence and demand for domestically produced beef.” Iain Aitken,
Rimbey, Alta.
Continued on page 54
feed off
the success
FORAGES
the best of the best – brettyoung alfalfa and grass blends
BrettYoung’s new lineup of alfalfa is based on a commitment to quality, productivity and innovation. Our new varieties have been
selected for their superior yield performance and disease resistance, and offer a mixture of rooting habits, regrowth, and other
special characteristics. Whether you’re looking for hybrid for yield, branch root for wet soils, sunken crown for traffic tolerance
or a multifoliate—we have the variety that will fit your needs. All our alfalfa varieties are available in stock or custom blends with
BrettYoung’s highest quality grass seed.
In the end, it all comes down to performance and BrettYoung brings a new standard of excellence to the field.
brettyoung.ca
Jon MontgoMery
2010 Olympic Gold Medalist – Skeleton
2008 World Championship Silver Medalist
Join Jon’s teaM!
Brettyoung.ca/JoinJonsteam
BrettYoung is a trademark of BrettYoung seeds Limited. 12027 09.12
•
800-665-5015
doIng More. usIng less.
A series on being ready for the
farming challenges ahead
Meeting Tier 4 final
engine requirements
Case IH Uses Smart, Simple Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)-Only Technology Right From the Start
I
n the 1990s, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
adopted a comprehensive national
program to reduce emissions
from nonroad diesel engines In
1996, the first off-highway diesel emissions
standards began with the implementation
of Tier 1 regulations. Since then, standards
have continued to be raised culminating
with Tier 4 B/Final in 2014. For agricultural
equipment manufacturers, meeting the
new Tier 4 requirements have necessitated
some major changes in engine design.
Beginning in 2010, Case IH made the
choice to focus its development efforts
on SCR-only technology to meet these
standards, while also providing maximum
customer benefit.
Cool-running and quiet, SCR is an
engine exhaust after-treatment system that
works outside the engine in the exhaust
system. Rather than interfere with engine
performance, it actually improves it. Unlike
competitive hybrid solutions, Case IH
Tier 4 B/Final technology will not require
regeneration of particulate filters or any
Cooled Exhaust Gas Recirculation (CEGR)
technology for their high horsepower
equipment.
“SCR-only exhaust after-treatment is
simply the most efficient and most powerful
engine technology solution for highhorsepower agricultural equipment,” says
Kyle Russell, Senior Director of Marketing,
Case IH North America. “Especially when
you consider the high load requirements
for field work and how important fuel
efficiency and maintenance costs are to
large producers.”
For nearly a decade, Case IH and Fiat
Powertrain Technologies (FPT) have been
working together on engine innovations
for agricultural equipment to meet Tier 4
regulations while also taking performance
to the next level, to increase responsiveness
and fuel efficiency in Case IH tractors and
combines. FPT produces approximately 2.6
million engines per year and is one of the
largest engine manufacturers in the world.
FPT has Research & Development
centers around the world, but their U.S.
R&D center is located in Illinois near the
Case IH Engineering Facility. This means
that the FPT application engineers, testing
engineers, after-treatment experts, and
quality experts are working with the
Case IH team of tractor engineers and
experts to design and test these highhorsepower engines.
“Before these engines even entered
the market, they’ve gone through several
caseih.com
thousand hours of rigorous testing to make
sure they were built to deliver the power and
performance you depend on,” Russell says.
“The close partnership between Case IH
and FPT means that our customers can be
confident in the quality, reliability, and level
of expertise supporting Case IH engines.
The partnership also means Case IH
dealer service technicians are trained to
work on these engines in-house at your
local dealership, limiting the time and
hassle of working with a separate engine
dealer.”
As equipment manufacturers prepare to
comply with the Tier 4 B/Final standards,
Case IH already has more than 25,000
Case IH Tier 4A engines with 13 million
hours of operation at work in North American
fields. To learn more about Case IH Tier 4
SCR engines and to hear it directly from
some of the users of these vehicles,
visit www.caseih.com/efficientpower.
Make high-quality, dense bales with a Case IH RB4 series baler. Choose from a range of models,
including silage balers, to get all the features you need for your operation. Wide pickups, shotpeened tines, in-cab controls, and a simple net wrap system deliver reliable performance season
after season. Ground-level access ensures routine maintenance and adjustments are quick and
easy. So, when your window of opportunity opens, be ready to roll with an RB4 series baler.
To learn more visit your local Case IH dealer or www.caseih.com/balercanc513.
BE READY.
©2013 CNH America LLC. All rights reserved. Case IH is a registered trademark of CNH America LLC. www.caseih.com.
equipment
HAVE FENCER, WILL TRAVEL
It’s powered and portable
R
angeWard’s Power Grazer is
a self-contained trailer configured for handy storage
and access to all portable
electric fencing components for rotational grazing, crop residue grazing
and winter grazing systems.
Norm Ward, owner-operator of
RangeWard and a family partner in
Round-Up 80 Ranch, southwest of
Granum, Alta., says the Power Grazer
evolved out of necessity on the ranch
that has itself evolved from a cow-calf
operation to a grazing operation in
recent years.
Approximately 2,000 owned and
custom-grassed steers are managed
as one or two groups depending on
water source supplies each summer.
They are moved every day or two in
a managed intensive grazing system
to achieve top production in grass
and cattle performance, explains
Ward, who started implementing a
holistic management approach to
ranching after attending a course
conducted by Allan Savory about 25
years ago.
That worked out to 72 moves last
summer alone.
It takes about an hour for two
people to set up or take down a mile
of fence using the Power Grazer, he
says. The steers are trained to the fence
within a couple of days and then he
and a few good working dogs can easily handle the moves.
The basic Power Grazer trailer
comes with a top-mounted, recessed
solar panel to collect energy that is
stored in two deep-cycle batteries that
run the energizer. The energizer powers the fence and the electric motor for
the reel, which holds up to two miles
of electric braided rope. There’s also
a hand crank for the reel as a backup,
storage rack for step-in posts along
with 100 pigtail posts, and a screw-in
ground rod.
The 1,150-pound trailer has torsion axles, a removable ball hitch and
a built-in three-point hitch, making it
convenient to pull behind a quad, halfton, or small tractor. There’s also a
receiver hitch on the back of the trailer
for towing a second unit.
Ward built his first Power Grazer
four years ago and a few for other
ranchers during the next couple of
years. Two years ago he took it to the
next level by contracting manufacturing and powder coating of the trailers
to companies in Pincher Creek and
Lethbridge. He installs the electrical
components and does the rest of the
setup in his shop at the ranch using
products he has come to trust for durability and dependable operation.
The solar panel is a 135-watt Kyocera model. A winter package allows it
to be set at a northern angle to capture
maximum power from the sun and
shed snow.
Ward now offers a choice of Gallagher or Stafix energizers for customers who have a preference for one over
the other. The standard package comes
with a seven-joule energizer that is
sufficient to power up to 20 miles of
multi-strand fence. It can be upgraded
to a 16-joule energizer with multiple
power levels and indicator lights to
handle up to 35 miles of multi-strand
fence. The Stafix energizer has the
option of connecting to a standard
110-volt electrical power source.
Power Grazer is designed with
ample capacity to electrify a portable
fence as well as the permanent fence,
Ward explains. Some customers have
established several locations with permanent ground rods within their grazing systems where they place the unit
to power all of the fencing as required.
Gallagher’s quarter-inch diameter,
bright white and red Turbo EquiBraid
rope is highly visible, easy to handle,
safe for horses, and provides excellent conductivity with nine strands of
wire braided into a nylon rope. He
upgraded to the braid rope because it’s
nearly impossible to break and can be
easily mended or joined to another reel
of EquiBraid by burning the nylon to
expose and reconnect the wires.
The step-in posts are made from
lightweight steel with an insulated
pigtail loop at the top to hold a single strand of wire 34 inches above
ground. The unit comes with 100
posts that will do about a mile of
fence. Additional posts can be purchased from RangeWard in lots of 10
or pallets of 2,000.
Security features include the removable towing hitch and a lockable box
for the batteries, energizer, regulator
and reel safety switch.
Priced at $11,000 f.o.b. the ranch
with the winter package and batteries included, the Power Grazer offers
convenience, efficiency, dependability
TAKING STOCK
Delta Genomics helping define the next great era for Canadian cattle
In the cattle industry, you’re only as good as your best bull. While that may be the case, staying focused
on your genetic breadwinner isn’t easy when you’re staring at a field full of cattle.
Delta Genomics is leveraging funding from Agriculture and Agri-food Canada under the Agriculture
Innovation Program, to increase the use of genetic testing that will advance the competitiveness of the
Canadian Beef industry and improve a producer’s stock.
The technology is called SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism)-based testing, and it can more easily,
accurately, and affordably identify the common traits between bulls and their offspring. “SNP is now
the gold standard of genomics,” explains Colin Coros, project lead with Edmonton-based Delta Genomics.
“It’s an important step forward for our industry.”
SNP-based parentage testing will replace a technology known as DNA microsatellite testing that
producers have been using for the past decade. It is a more affordable process and is quickly becoming
the standard in the industry.
“In addition to parentage testing, the benefits of SNP-based testing are many, it allows us to quickly isolate
and encourage attractive traits like feed efficiency, meat quality, and fertility in cattle, ” Coros says.
Delta’s goal is to offset steep transition costs for the producer so that SNP-based testing becomes routine.
The first phase of the project is nearly complete, and four major breed associations are already seeing
the enormous cost benefits of this new technology – including Limousin, Gelbvieh, Angus and Simmental.
“The number one hybrid bull breeding company in Canada, Beefbooster, is also on board. ” Coros says.
“Beefbooster alone has added over 16 million new data points to its pedigree from this project. This
is real world success which we hope will only grow.”
Proof of the power of SNP-based testing can be found just across the pasture, in Canada’s dairy industry.
Having adopted the system in 2008, the industry has saved upwards of $180 million and the quality of stock
has improved immensely. It’s a model Coros hopes to replicate with the beef industry. “This project will
form a critical mass of associations and producers and prepare Canada for the next generation,” he says.
“It’s our time to grow.”
PROJECT BRIEF
Increase the use of a
superior DNA testing
model (called SNP-based
testing) in the Canadian
cattle industry.
CRITICAL BENEFITS
• Reduce the high,
up-front costs
necessary for producers
to participate
• Improve accuracy,
efficiency and
affordability of
genetic testing
• Generate rapid genetic
improvements in stock
• Create a more
competitive Canadian
cattle industry
LEAD ORGANIZATION
Delta Genomics is a not-for-profit DNA processing lab specializing in livestock.
Parent organization is Livestock Gentec, a global leader in genomics research, based out of the
faculty of Agriculture, Life, and Environmental Sciences at the University of Alberta.
Funding for this project has been provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the
Agricultural Innovation Program, as part of Canada’s Economic Action Plan.
and a lot of flexibility relative to the
cost of custom-built, permanent, barbwire fencing, which Ward estimates
at about $5,000 a mile for labour and
material nowadays.
Aside from use in rotational grazing
systems any time of the year, customers
are putting the Power Grazer to work
in difficult terrain where permanent
fencing would be impossible or very
costly to install. It also offers a solution
for locations where high big-game traffic, heavy snowfall, or other users with
access to the land make it impractical
to maintain permanent fencing, and
for keeping cattle and horses out of
areas where other activities or reclamation work are in progress.
Likewise, producers are using
Power Grazers for managing riparian
areas to protect fragile ecosystems and
compliment waterfowl habitat, Ward
explains. Riparian areas can easily be
fenced off as needed and depending
on water levels from year to year, and
then stock can be fenced into riparian
areas when conditions are right for
grazing. This also eliminates packing
from the trailing effect caused by animals following permanent fencelines
every year.
A top-mounted solar
panel powers the fence
and the electric motor
for the reel that holds
up to two miles of
electric braided rope
The Power Grazer makes grazing
crop residues or salvaging damaged
crops much more feasible in fields
without permanent fencing. It also
eliminates problems associated with
permanent fencing on cropland, such
as weed growth under the fencelines
and manoeuvring around posts.
“It is convenient, yes, but at the end
of the day, it’s about managing your
landscape for the benefit of the land
and the animals,” Ward says.
Now with the cows out of the picture, Ward has freed up time to pursue his interest in manufacturing, which
goes back to the late 1980s when he was
a partner in the company that manufactured the calf roper tipping table.
He expects to have two new products available this spring.
A stationary solar-powered electric
fencing system will feature the same
large 135-watt solar panel and energizers, minus the electric reel and post
storage of the Power Grazer.
A new spring-loaded fencing system
is designed for permanent or portable
applications along lengths of fence line
that are frequently damaged by big
game, heavy snow or falling trees. It
will include PowerFlex posts (Canadian C attlemen , April 2009) with
big Gallagher springs where the wire
attaches to permanent fence posts.
For more information, call Ward
at 403-687-2260 or visit www.rangeward.ca.
C
— Debbie Furber
Youth Education
More YEP
The next generation is your future
T
wo issues ago you were all
treated to a special article
written for you by my newest
grazing manager, my daughter Letitia Kenyon. A special thanks
to all of you who sent comments
encouraging her in her ventures and
education. I’m very proud of her, but
don’t you worry, her education is just
started. At Greener Pastures I put a
lot of effort into my Youth Education
Program (YEP).
She managed her own donkey herd
on five acres last summer and proved
that a small piece of land can still be
profitable. If you have ever taken my
school or heard me speak at a conference, you have probably heard me
talk about sustainability. I believe
that a pasture stand is not sustainable without the next generation of
new seedlings developing. A forest is
not sustainable without new saplings
growing and the family farm is not
sustainable without the next generation wanting to return to the farm.
We have had a major issue in agriculture developing over the last couple
of decades. Our youth are not wanting to take over the family farm. Why?
That’s easy! As farmers and ranchers,
we work really hard and struggle to
make ends meet. We all talk about the
“lifestyle” on the farm but from what I
see, it’s not a very good one. Our farms
are subsidized by off-farm employment,
government programs and appreciating
land values. Have you ever heard the
term, “land rich but dirt poor?” This
is a very common situation for a lot
of family farms in North America. We
have worked hard for many years in
agriculture with little profit but in the
process have increased our equity in real
estate. The common retirement plan in
my area is to subdivide and sell off land.
The value of land has increased and
surpassed the agricultural value of it. In
many areas, our youth can no longer
buy a piece of land and expect to make
it cash flow and Mom and Dad cannot afford to give the land to their kids
because that’s their retirement.
So we work very hard at a job that
does not pay well, we need off-farm
income to subsidize it and then we
wonder why our kids don’t want to
follow in our footsteps. They would
rather go out and get a “real” job and
enjoy a better lifestyle. I believe that it
is our job to show our youth that our
businesses are profitable and enjoyable.
But wait, first off we have to make sure
our businesses can be profitable and
show them this “lifestyle” that we all
brag about.
By teaching business
skills to my children
they will be prepared
for whatever venture
they pursue
Can your family farm be profitable and enjoyable? Can you provide
a “lifestyle” they would enjoy? If we
can show our youth this, then we have
to make sure they are educated. And
by education I am not referring to a
degree or a diploma, nor am I referring
to teaching them how to pound a post
or drive a tractor. Both of these might
be important, but academia does not
have a monopoly on knowledge and
teaching production practices will not
make sure a farm succeeds. In addition
to the morals and values they need, I
want to teach business and life skills.
My kids will tell you that the two most
important skills in life are communication and money management.
Farming is not the same as it used
to be. We need to understand the business skills and not just the production
practices. By teaching business skills to
my children, they will be prepared for
whatever venture they pursue whether
it is on the farm or not. Along with
this they need to be able to use these
skills to adapt and change their businesses as needed.
The inability of a family farm to
change is the major contributor in the
lack of profitability in our industry.
Ouch. I know. That’s a hard statement
for some producers to hear but reality
hurts. Farming has changed and to be
profitable, producers need to be able
to adjust to the conditions. We need to
farm smarter, not just work harder. If
your farm is failing, sorry, it is due to
management.
It is my job to prepare my next generation for the future, whatever that
may be. I just happen to finance that
with ranching. Without them my business is not sustainable.
So what do I have planned for
this summer with my YEP? Well, my
youngest is eight and will continue
to expand her egg business. We have
some portable cages I found a deal on
last fall and we will increase the size
of her flock. She will need to expand
her marketing as her business grows.
I have no concerns with her ability to
sell her product as she is very charming. She is developing great communication skills.
My son at age 11 is already planning his pop stand. He has financing
plans to take in his bottles (his other
profit centre) in order to stock his
coolers for the pop stand. Self-financing is a good way to plan. He might
also take over the donkey pasture this
summer from his sister.
My oldest will be turning 13 this
summer and she liked the taste of profit
last summer. She is excited to take on
a larger piece of land. I have 80 acres
that is part of one of my larger cells.
It will need fence repairs and it is hers
this year. She will have to pay the rent
and find a way to get the work done
even though she is not physically strong
enough for the fencing and water system setup. This will be her first taste
of hiring an employee. It is only 80
acres but for two to three weeks out of
the summer she will be managing 600
head on it. It’s a big step up from the
five-acre donkey pasture last year with
six head. And of course, she will need
to calculate out the grazing chart and
determine the profitability of it.
My Youth Education Program is
always at work. I was lucky to have one
in my home when I was young. I consider it my duty to provide that opportunity in my home now. Best wishes. C
— Steven Kenyon
Steve Kenyon runs Greener Pastures Ranching Ltd. in Busby, Alta., 780-307-6500,
email [email protected].
Cattlemen / May 2013 13
pasture
CONTROLLING CANADA
THISTLE IN PASTURES
Low-intensity/high-frequency grazing (l); high-intensity/low-frequency grazing (middle); continuous grazing (r).
C
anada thistles in pastures
don’t just look ugly, they
cause economic harm with
yield losses approaching
nearly two to one. That’s two pounds
of desirable forage biomass lost for
every pound of thistle biomass.
The good news is that you will gain
the forage back if you remove thistles,
says Dr. Edward Bork, professor of
rangeland ecology and management at
the University of Alberta, Edmonton.
“A bundling approach including fertility with a judicious herbicide regime
coupled with rotational grazing in an
integrated manner will get this weed
and probably lots of others down to
manageable levels over the long term,”
he says.
Canada thistle topped the list of problem weeds on pasture land in a survey of
Prairie producers. Its notorious prickles
can render otherwise grazeable land useless. The deep, creeping roots send new
shoots popping up along lengths that
extend up to 20 feet, making the weed
difficult to control once it takes hold.
Bork and his students put Canada
thistle to the test in perennial pastures
to derive recommendations that avoid
having to rip out the forage stand.
Field studies were conducted in cooperation with Alberta producers who
provided thistle-infested tame grass
and grass-legume pastures as well as
cattle for grazing as needed.
Broadcast applications of 29-13-3-4
fertilizer at the rate of 335 pounds per
acre (lbs./ac.) in each of three years
increased productivity of desirable
forage by an average of 76 per cent.
Unfortunately, thistle productivity also
increased by 26 per cent, on average.
“So, if you have lots of thistle, and
are going to fertilize and do nothing
else, you might make the problem
worse and be wasting your valuable
fertilizer,” Bork explains.
The fertilizer rate, which works out
to 100 pounds actual nitrogen per acre,
was chosen to remove variable soil fertility as a recovery factor for desirable
forages during the study. In practice, the
rate may be considered quite high and
could be scaled back, especially after the
first year, because the big boost in forage
production came in the first year.
Four broadleaf herbicides were
compared for effectiveness in removal
of thistles from permanent pasture:
Grazon, Dyvel DS, Lontrel and 2,4-D.
Each was applied singularly on pasture plots in early to mid-July. Two
months later, all products had reduced
the thistle population compared to the
unsprayed checks. Two years later, all
sites that had received herbicide treatments still had lower thistle densities
compared to the checks. The lowest
thistle densities were in areas sprayed
with Grazon and Lontrel.
This didn’t come as a surprise
Edward Bork
because Grazon and Lontrel are highly
translocated throughout the plant leading to effective control of roots and
shoots. Additionally, both are bioactives with residual properties in the
soil and, therefore, capable of providing longer-term control of thistle plants
as they grow, Bork explains.
The recommended time for application is when the majority of thistles are at the bud or early-flowering
stage. This is when transport of herbicide to the roots will be most efficient
and plant energy reserves will be low,
weakening its ability to rebound and
reducing its vigour. Control will be
most effective when there is adequate
leaf area to absorb the herbicide.
compete rigorously to further suppress
Though none of the herbicides
the weed.
require removal of beef cattle from
pastures, some do have restrictions on
Weed removal by grazing
removal of animals from treated fields
prior to slaughter and the restrictions
If carefully managed, rotational
are tighter for dairy cattle immediately
grazing may, in itself, be enough to
following treatment, Bork cautions,
bring a thistle infestation under conadvising producers to follow label rectrol. It is certainly the key to maintainommendations.
ing effective thistle control.
“As for forage response, we were
Cattle are selective grazers by
definitely getting forage back by
nature and their preferences for conremoving the weed,” Bork confirms.
suming certain plants and avoiding
Without fertilization, the herbicide
others will cause changes in the comtreatments resulted in an average 36
position of species within a pasture.
per cent increase in forage producGrazing only desirable forages around
tion, which translated into 985 lbs./ac.
weeds weakens and reduces the comof additional forage. Forage producpetitiveness of the desired species, leavtion on fertilized sites was highest and
ing more light, water and nutrients for
increased by 1,234 lbs./ac. following
the weeds.
herbicide treatment.
Bork’s team looked at how CanA strategy known as weed-and-feed
ada thistle responds to the intensity
takes advantage of the strong synergies
and frequency of defoliation of surdetected between fertilization and herrounding plants. Four grazing stratebicides to improve weed suppression
gies were implemented on fertilized
in the long term, Bork adds. Weakenand unfertilized sites and cumulative
ing the weed population with herbigrass production was measured for
cide allows the grasses to get the lion’s
three years.
share
of- the
from fertilizer
WH PP
7 x 5benefi
-_AGIt 2013-02-26
1:37and
PM Page 1One part of the study involved clip-
ping forages around thistles to isolate
the effect of selective grazing.
Continuous clipping down to
a height of approximately one inch
every 14 days mimicked maximum
stress on forages and resulted in the
lowest grass production on fertilized
and unfertilized pastures.
Low-intensity/high-frequency
(LIHF) sites clipped to a height of
approximately four inches every two
weeks resulted in the second-lowest
grass production.
High-intensity/low-frequency (HILF)
sites were clipped to approximately one
inch every six weeks and provided the
second-highest grass production. This
showed that rest is critical to rebuilding
forage leaf area, root mass and stems.
The highest forage biomass came
from fertilized and unfertilized plots in
the deferred grazing sites, which were
left to grow for the entire summer.
“These findings demonstrate the
potential of deferred grazing and even
changes in the intensity and frequency
Doesn’t take
breaks or
call in sick:
YOUR NEW
FENCING
CREW
Wheatheart offers a complete line of
Heavy Duty & Hard Hitting fencing
equipment designed to make fencing
jobs safer, faster and more efﬁcient.
Wheatheart post pounders include
conveniently located joystick controls
and four way tilt mast with a post hugger.
Drive wood or steel posts up to 12" in
diameter.
Available in 3 point hitch mount, versatile
trailer models and skid steer mount with
optional pilot auger attachment.
Contact your local Wheatheart dealer!
1-877-934-0649
www.wheatheart.com
of defoliation to maximize grazing
opportunities,” Bork says.
Thistle response to defoliation
of surrounding plants was the exact
reverse. Thistle biomass was highest in
the continuous system, followed by the
LIHF, HILF and deferred systems, suggesting strong competition between the
weed population and adjacent forage.
The second part of the study compared HILF, LIHF and continuous systems grazed by cattle at four locations
for three years.
Thistle density remained stable in
excess of 32 stems per square metre
when cattle had repeated access to
plants in the continuous system.
LIHF grazing was managed to
achieve 40 per cent utilization with two
weeks of rest between grazing periods.
It provided limited thistle control with
24 thistle stems per square metre by the
end of the third year.
Cattle in the HILF system were
allowed to graze 70 to 80 per cent
of the forage, which took about five
days, and the pasture was then rested
for six weeks. This provided the best
thistle suppression with fewer than
two thistle plants per square metre
remaining after three years.
Bork says the HILF system was most
effective because the recovery period
was sufficient for the grasses to remain
competitive and cattle didn’t selectively
graze around thistles to the same extent
as in the other systems. In fact, they
actually removed thistle by consuming
it at a rate of 1,397 lbs./ac.!
Cattle didn’t reject thistles under
HILF grazing because periodic defoliation kept most of them at the early
growth stage (rosette) when they are
most palatable and nutritious, with
crude protein content of 18.6 per
cent and total digestible nutrients of
83 per cent.
They consumed some thistle in the
LIHF system, but not nearly enough to
provide effective control.
Cattle didn’t touch the thistles in
the continuous grazing system, letting
them advance to the late-flowering-tofluff stage. By this time, the weed has
more stem, is pricklier and becomes
harder for animals to eat and digest
than young thistles.
The final question was to determine whether superior thistle control
achieved with the HILF system had
provided only temporary control of the
shoots, or had controlled the extensive
root system as well.
“A year after producers had
reverted back to continuous grazing,
the thistles had not recovered on the
HILF pastures, suggesting that control was achieved above and below
ground,” Bork says. “The thistle population was struggling to recover and a
big increase in total forage productivity
was still evident. This is a rare win-win
situation because the greatest thistle
control coincided with the grazing system that gave the best production and
best utilization of thistle.”
For more information or to receive
an electronic version of the booklet,
HOW TO WIN THE WAR ON CANADA
THISTLE, contact Bork at 403-492-3843
or [email protected].
C
— Debbie Furber
Join us at
“Riding for the Brand”
Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association
100th Annual General Meeting and Convention
June 9th - 11th, 2013
Moose Jaw Exhibition Convention Centre
Special
anniversary events:
Ranch Rodeo
BBQ and Barn Dance
Gala Banquet
For details visit: www.skstockgrowers.com
16 CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013
We’ve Got
Your Back,
canada.
It’s a hard day’s grind from sun up to sundown. You know your fields but
can never know for sure what the day will bring. You trust your instincts
and rely on the knowledge you’ve picked up through the years. It also helps
that you’ve got the right equipment. Not to mention a dealer network that’s
ready to provide expert support whenever you need it. You’ve got work to
do and Vermeer is here to help. We’ve got your back, Canada.
See Vermeer products work and find your local dealer on vermeer.com.
Vermeer and the Vermeer logo are trademarks of Vermeer Manufacturing Company in the U.S. and/or other countries. © 2013 Vermeer Corporation. All rights reserved.
CanadianCattlemanFullpg.indd 1
4/8/13 3:54 PM
management
Counting on forage
Year-round grazing fuelled the expansion of this Saskatchewan herd
A
aron Ivey doesn’t recall
an aha moment when he
decided to make beef production his career. Their
third-generation family farm near
Ituna, Sask., had always had a small
herd of cows but was mainly a grain
operation even after the feedlot was
added in 1997.
Perhaps the timing of his decision
faded in the blur of activity during the
past decade as the family eliminated
the grain operation and focused on a
steady expansion of the herd from 75
cows to 1,400 today. Underpinning
the expansion was an increase in the
land base to 56 quarters, all of it in
perennial forages, supporting a 365day grazing system.
Today, Evergreen Cattle Co. is a
cow-calf and feedlot operation owned
and operated by Aaron and Adrienne,
who have two young children, Noel and
Cole, and Aaron’s folks, Bob and Karen.
The impetus to move in this direction traces back to the collapse of the
bred market in 2003 that left his family holding 250 bred heifers. That said,
Ivey firmly believes a cow-calf operation makes the best use of their land
and having 45 of the 56 quarters in a
block gives them a lot of flexibility to
make the best use of the forage.
Traditionally this is a mixed farming area with fertile soil and ample precipitation, but it’s dotted with bush and
sloughs. That can make grain farming tedious and also cuts into profits,
particularly during the recent string of
wet years when sloughs have mushroomed in size. On Ivey’s place somewhere between 1,200 to 1,500 acres of
formerly productive pasture are now
slough bottoms.
To take advantage of the great forage production potential of the land
they planted a blend of 50 per cent
alfalfa and five grasses: meadow
brome, hybrid brome, orchard grass,
wheatgrass and fescue. It’s a mix that
Aaron says provides the greatest flexibility for grazing and haying.
Alfalfa-grass fields can be managed
for grazing starting with stockpiled
standing forage in April through multiple passes into late fall. Select fields in
the rotation are baled for winter bale
Aaron Ivey
grazing while others are put up as hay
stored in the yard for the feedlot and
cows temporarily held near the yard
during weaning and processing. New
stands are put up as silage for the feedlot in the establishment year to supplement the cows during prolonged cold
spells, or for carry-over.
Bales are generally left as they roll
out of the baler in bale-grazing fields
to save the time and cost of moving
them. Sisal twine is another time saver
as it is degradable and doesn’t have to
be removed from the bales or cleaned
up in spring. It’s not as durable as poly
twine or netting, but generally holds
long enough that they can move bales
once should it become necessary.
They’ve been bale grazing long
enough now to be confident in the
cows’ ability to provide for themselves
even in deep snow. If the snow is really
deep the Iveys will sometimes open a
path with the tractor to a new field or
certain areas of a field to entice them,
but for the most part the cattle are on
their own.
Wintering groups vary from 200 to
600 pairs, depending on the location
and quality of the feed. First-calf heifers
get first crack at the better-quality bales
along with older, thinner cows that may
be sorted into this group as needed.
Creep feeders are set out for the
calves in the first month or so of bale
grazing until everyone gets up to
speed. They get about seven pounds
per head per day of dried distillers
grain and/or whole oats. When they
used grain screenings intake immediately shot up to about 12 pounds
per head per day. Digestive problems
haven’t been an issue. Aaron suspects
that’s because the calves stop intermittently at the feeders throughout the
day and then move on to keep up with
the cows.
They leave the calves on the cows
as long as possible — hopefully until
March. There have been years when
they pulled them earlier to give the cows
a chance to regain some condition.
Weaning in March isn’t much of
a deal as the calves are fairly independent by then and readily take to a
backgrounding ration. It happens in
stages over a couple of weeks as each
wintering group is moved into the field
near the feedlot. The cows come and
go along the fenceline for a few days
before they are trailed to a new bale
grazing field offering the best-quality
forage available.
The feedlot was initially established
to take advantage of Saskatchewan’s
lower feed costs, but that edge has
been eroded in recent years. Expanded
in 2001 to hold 2,500 head the lot is
mainly used today to background their
own calves and some purchased feedContinued on page 21
BEEF INNOVATIONS
JULY 15 & 16, 2013
CALGARY, AB
Agenda will include leading genomic researchers
from Canada, Australia, Ireland & the United States
along with cutting-edge sector representatives who
are utilizing genomic technologies in their business.
For a complete agenda and further details
please visit www.simmentalinnovations.com
or www.simmental.com
or call 403-250-7979
www.simmental.com
Canadian Simmental Association....
leading the industry through
genomic research initiatives
Your New Holland dealer has a lineup of tractors, hay tools and handling
products that are SMART for the way you farm and the way you live.
To learn more, visit NewHollandSmart.com/dairyAND
NewHollandSmart.com/dairyANDlivestock
livestock to see our products,
locate your closest dealer and reQuest additional information.
©2013 CNH America LLC. New Holland is a registered trademark of CNH America LLC. NHL04137872a
1107872_NHL04137872a_CanadianCattlemen_8-125x10-75_r2.indd 1
4/22/13 11:35 AM
ers. When the numbers work they still
finish some animals.
For the most part, the herd has been
expanded with their own heifers because
they adapt more readily to their farm
environment and management. Aaron
has a certain type of animal in mind
when making the initial decision on
replacements and then he allows their
system to select the winners. Only animals that thrive stay in the herd.
“The more we compensate, the less
selection pressure we put on the animals,” Ivey explains. “If a heifer can
survive the winter in good condition,
flesh over the spring and early summer, cycle and catch in one cycle, calve
on her own and raise a calf, she has
passed a lot of tests without my help.”
Heifers calve in April near the yard
in case they need assistance before the
main herd starts calving on pasture in
May and June.
Lousy April weather in recent years
has Ivey toying with moving the heifers to May calving. A snowstorm this
April may have been the clincher.
The herd is divided into groups of
approximately 300 pairs for summer
grazing. This size of group works well
for breeding, the grazing rotation, and
for branding in mid- to late July when
the calves are also tagged and vaccinated. There are no second chances
for cows that haven’t calved or have
lost calves.
The Iveys graze their pairs in a
seven- to 10-day rotation through pastures of about 80 acres. The pastures
can be split further to speed up the
rotation in peak growth periods or
reserve part of the pasture for haying.
Between the cows, yearlings, and
haying, each pasture will be harvested
at least once, usually twice and sometimes three times during the year. Pastures to be stockpiled are grazed once
around the end of May then left for
the remainder of the summer.
Keeping track
On average they need six to seven
cultivated acres of tame forage to
carry a cow for 365 days and still have
enough for the yearlings.
Yields can vary a lot from pasture
to pasture, from 45 to 200 cow days
per acre, depending on the type of
land, the time of year, growing conditions, size of the cow and calf, and
their management.
Forage production is measured in
cow days, the amount it takes to feed
one dry cow for a day whether she is
grazing fresh, stockpiled or baled forage. The calf’s share is calculated by
using a factor of 0.1 for each month
she has a calf at side. So in June, a
new pair would harvest 33 cow days
of feed (30 days X 1.1). In July, they
would harvest 37 cow days (31 days
X 1.2). By August, they’d be consuming 40 cow days (31 days X 1.3), and
so on.
“This way I can measure the production off my land no matter whether
I’m haying it, grazing it once or three
times, stockpile grazing, or bale grazing,” Ivey explains. “The same unit of
production is always used even though
the yield per acre and cost per acre
may differ from paddock to paddock.”
For example, forage production on
bale grazing fields can be more than
200 cow days per acre, but the cost
per cow day is higher because of the
haying and baling expense. Production
from the stockpiled pastures is usually the lowest, but it’s very valuable
compared to the cost of feeding bales
in April and early May and it lets them
get the herd out of muddy areas onto
high ground as early as possible.
Ivey is optimistic about the potential
for continued expansion — in fact, the
herd is up 200 head from a year ago.
Their year-round grazing program on a
perennial forage base greatly eases the
labour, equipment and facility requirements, though it does have its limitations as far as future expansion goes
because of the need for a contiguous
land base to easily move cattle through
the system.
“The number of cows we can run
is a function of the amount of land we
can lock up,” he says.
When it comes right down to it,
though, it’s about the amount of forage their land produces. That’s why
Ivey is an avid supporter of the forage industry, serving as president of
the Saskatchewan Forage Council and
chair of the newly formed Saskatchewan Forage Network.
“Research on the grain side has
led to improved yields and agronomic
and quality traits, but we haven’t seen
the same effort go into forages,” he
explains. “Forage production must
return a fair dollar value to the land
before any profit can be allocated to
the cow herd.”
C
— Debbie Furber
SALES EVENT
GET
READY.
GET
ROLLING.
Now’s the season to save
on select tractors and
hay & forage equipment
built New Holland SMART.
VISIT YOUR LOCAL NEW HOLLAND
DEALER TODAY AND ASK FOR A DEMO!
www.newholland.com/na
©2013 CNH America LLC. New Holland is a
registered trademark of CNH America LLC.
NHLR04137872FT
environment
GRAZING CATTLE BIGGEST
METHANE EMITTER
… with significant losses in efficiency
I
t’ll be a bit of a surprise to a lot
of people but life cycle analysis
research shows that the cow-calf
sector usually seen as the most
environmentally friendly part of the
beef business is in fact the largest
greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter.
New research at Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada’s Lethbridge Research
Centre Onefour Ranch is setting out
to put numbers to enteric methane loss
from cattle grazing on range. The goal,
says lead researcher Sean McGinn, is to
tackle efficiency and build a more sustainable industry long term.
Most cattle producers believe their
industry is sustainable with a low environmental impact. After all, cattle on
grasslands preserve soil carbon and
maintain wildlife habitat.
But what they may not know is that
grazing also comes with some detrimental environmental implications which
are not so visible, says McGinn. The
low digestibility of grasses and subsequent need for greater fermentation
increases enteric methane production.
Globally, there is a move to mitigate
GHG in agriculture, so there is some
urgency to understand the impact of
strategies that reduce the loss of methane from ruminants, says McGinn.
The potential is significant. Worldwide, grasslands occupy 25 per cent of
the Earth’s surface, 30 per cent of the
total farm area in Canada with 86 per
cent on the Prairies.
Countries such as New Zealand,
which faces more than 50 per cent of
its GHG production from agriculture,
is leading in terms of tackling GHG,
says McGinn.
Value to Canadian producers
Why does this matter to Canadian
beef producers?
“It’s all related to sustainability,”
says McGinn. “In the public’s mind the
environmental component is becoming
more important, so agriculture has to
tackle greenhouse gas production from
all sectors, including beef.
“The important thing for producers to understand is that if we can
measure methane emissions effectively,
this is a win-win for producers and
environmentalists. Greenhouse gas
emissions represent a loss of efficiency.
Between two per cent and 12 per cent
of energy from methane production is
lost to emissions. If we can reduce that
we’ve increased the value of feed. And
if we manipulate diet without much
cost to the producer, then it’s really a
win-win.”
The research shows
84 per cent of methane
emissions from cattle
were associated with
grazing cows
McGinn says it’s important to note
all this is not saying the cow-calf part
of the beef industry is not a sustainable
system. “Cow-calf brings all sorts of
value like land stewardship and carbon
reserves in the soil. But we need more
to get numbers on the emissions situation to be clear.”
Research targets
The Onefour research targets are
based on what was learned from life
cycle analysis of the Western Canada
beef herd. That research shows 84 per
cent of methane emissions from cattle
were associated with grazing cows.
“Research to date had been focused
on feedlot and dairy sectors where
emissions can be controlled with diet
manipulation,” says McGinn, “but
clearly there is a need to consider
grazing practices when investigating
strategies to reduce enteric methane
production from cattle.”
The Onefour Ranch research will
help the industry understand whether
beef cattle grazing mixed grasses are a
net sink or source of the carbon-based
greenhouse gases in the beef production system of southern Alberta. Basically grazing systems sequester carbon
and from year to year carbon changes.
At Onefour, McGinn explains, peak
carbon intake to the system is July, but
starting in August it drops through the
fall and winter period. It’s important to
know that change from year to year. If
you superimpose on that methane and
carbon loss, you get a true value of the
carbon balance of the grazing system.
New ways to measure methane
One of the challenges of setting up
this new research was that there were
no reliable ways to measure methane
emissions in grazing cattle. In feedlots and dairies, where the bulk of this
measurement work had been done,
scientists use lasers set up upwind and
downwind to measure concentrations
of methane.
“That doesn’t work with grazing
because we don’t have the same concentration of animals,” says McGinn.
“So we put together one-hectare paddocks and grazed 40 animals for three
days in each paddock. We put the
lasers close to the paddocks so were
able to measure concentrations. To do
that required knowing exactly where
cattle were in the paddock, so each
animal was fitted with a GPS collar. So
every 10 minutes we knew where these
animals were and were able to measure
net emissions.”
The results are eventually incorporated into Holos, a Canadian-designed
calculator built to measure whole
farm emissions. One of the challenges
with Holos has been that to date the
bulk of the data used in that tool is
international, which does not necessarily provide an accurate value for
Canadian lands, says McGinn. These
new data will help provide a more
accurate reflection of the Canadian
situation.
C
— Terry Hockaday, Meristem Media
N u t r i t i o n
by John McKinnon
[email protected]
Clean and green — beef
production kiwi style
John McKinnon
is a beef cattle
nutritionist at
the University of
Saskatchewan
O
ur time in New Zealand is rapidly
coming to an end. I must admit we
have really enjoyed our visit. One
aspect of New Zealand society that
I have been particularly impressed with is their
awareness of and attention to the environment.
The country prides itself on its “clean and green
image” and in fact uses this image in successfully marketing agricultural products around the
world.
The New Zealand government has been a
strong supporter of the initial Kyoto Protocol
(although like many other industrialized countries,
it has not signed on to Phase 2 of the protocol)
and has worked to achieve its targeted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In this context,
considerable attention has been focused on the
agriculture sector, particularly livestock. This focus
stems from the fact that agriculture is responsible
for approximately 50 per cent of New Zealand’s
total greenhouse gas emissions. It is closer to 10
per cent in Canada. Why the difference? First
the Canadian economy is much more diversified,
thus the relative contribution of Canadian agriculture to greenhouse gas emissions is less. Secondly,
unlike other developed countries, agriculture still
plays a major role in the New Zealand economy,
with meat and milk products responsible for a significant proportion of export revenue.
As I mentioned last month, there are approximately 10 million cattle (dairy and beef) and
30 million sheep in New Zealand. This heavy
emphasis on ruminant production has environmental implications. Geenhouse gas emissions
have been identified by most environmental
scientists as being a major contributor to global
warming. The main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, with
the latter two being the most potent. Ruminants contribute to greenhouse gas emissions
in a variety of ways. Direct contributions occur
when methane is produced and released (via
belching) from the rumen when bacteria ferment carbohydrates and protein present in the
feed. The amount produced depends on the type
and weight of animal and the diet. Generally
speaking, the bigger the animal, the greater the
animal’s feed intake and the greater its methane
production. All things being equal, animals fed
high-forage diets tend to produce more methane
than those fed high grain. Not only is enteric
methane production an environmental issue but
it also represents a loss of feed energy and thus
potential weight gain. Research shows that this
loss can range from as low as two to four per
cent of gross energy intake for grain-fed cattle
to seven per cent or more for cattle fed foragebased diets.
Cattle also contribute to nitrous oxide production and release. In this case most of the
contribution is indirect through the activities of
micro-organisms in the soil that convert nitrogen
compounds in urine or manure to nitrous oxide.
The release of nitrous oxide occurs over time
during manure storage and handling and subsequent application to soil. Practices associated
with ruminant production such as fertilizer use
add to the greenhouse gas emissions attributed
to cattle and sheep.
Now, I do not want to convey the impression
that ruminants are the sole contributor to any
nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, as these are
derived from a variety of sources, notably the
energy and transportation sector as well as natural sources. However, with its heavy emphasis on
dairy and sheep production, the contribution of
livestock to New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas
emissions is significant and one of the reasons
why agriculture contributes a greater percentage
to total emissions than what is seen in Canada.
To address this issue, New Zealand has put a
great deal of emphasis on research that focuses
on reducing the environmental impact of its
cattle and sheep. Examples include selecting
a line of sheep with low methane production
potential, manipulating rumen methane production through vaccination, evaluating the feasibility of growing high-yielding pasture species with
reduced nitrogen content, use of nitrification
inhibitors that limit nitrate and nitrous oxide
release from excreted urine and manure as well
as an extensive screening program to measure
methane release under a variety of production
situations. The aim is to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and to help the country build on its
reputation as an exporter of environmentally
sustainable food products.
Before concluding, however, I would be remiss
not to mention that Canadian researchers, particularly those at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
and the University of Manitoba have been global
leaders in measuring methane emissions from
cattle and in developing innovative solutions.
Next issue, I will discuss one of these solutions,
that being the selection of animals for residual
feed intake.
Pick a word and run with it.
Introducing the All-New 9 Series Round Balers
You can use a lot of words to describe the new 9 Series Balers. Faster?
A quicker gate cycle time of up to Ɵve seconds adds speed to your
bale making. Enhanced? Check out the higher-quality Diamond®
chains that strengthen durability and reduce maintenance. Improved?
Standard adjustable hitch lets you match the baler to your speciƟc tire
size and drawbar height for optimal crop Ơow. Greater? Get used to
less downtime thanks to the extended-lube driveline, offering more
than 20 hours of longer service interval.
And just think, these are only a few of the upgrades. We’ve also
added four high-performance models: new, bigger 5-foot wide
Silage Specials, and a 9 Series Premium lineup featuring a revamped
styling, ISOBUS monitor, and much more.
So many words sum up the new 9 Series, but the word we went with
is ‘stronger’ because with all the new internal advancements, we’ve
literally made these balers stronger to the core. Learn more about our
new strengths at your John Deere dealer or visit us online.
John Deere 9 Series Round Balers – Stronger to the Core
JohnDeere.com/Hay
grazing
There is more to grazing
than meets the eye
Here’s a simple way to run some “what if” scenarios before you break up that pasture.
T
o graze or not to graze?
That is the current question
facing most cattle people
today as they wonder if they
should break up and seed more land
to high-value crops. It’s a very tough
decision but Arnold Mattson has
something that can help you make
the right choice.
“We created a spreadsheet computer calculator, called the “Wealthy
Rancher” which helps producers
break their agriculture operation into
profit centres, pastures being one, so
that they can identify where they are
making money and where they are
losing,” says Mattson, a pasture stewardship adviser with Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada.
“In other words grass farmers can
figure out their own profit from grazing. After all, every pasture is different
and every manager has different skills. “All you have to do is click on
which enterprise (yearling or cowcalf) you want to work on and then
enter your cost and production figures and the calculator will do the
rest,” says Mattson. “The calculator
divides your ranch into profit centres,
land, pasture, livestock, and gives
you an estimated return for each. It
will show what return you can expect
from each enterprise. Whether you
are a landowner, a custom grazier, or
a livestock producer, allocating your
own figures (expenses as well as revenues) in this manner, can help you
assess the financial situation of any
segment of your business.”
In the business of ranching there
are three basic sources of income;
land, pasture, and livestock. “An economic assessment of a grazing system
provides a manager with an enterprise
plan that is profit driven, rather than
production driven. The intent is to
show net profit for the land, the grass,
the livestock, and the three assets combined. Each enterprise is treated as
a separate business, which helps to
understand which one is losing and/or
making money.”
This also puts pasture on the same
footing as a crop for a fair comparison.
Pasture did pretty well in one study
Mattson worked on in Alberta using
farm data from the AgriProfit$ Busi-
ness Analysis and Research Program.
They compared the net returns of grass
to barley, wheat and canola on three
different soil types over 10 years.
“We are surprised by our findings,”
says Mattson. The pasture data came from several
grazers in each soils zone who had
highly managed pastures. The cost for
grazing varied from 10 to 12 cents/
cwt/day in Alberta for grazing yearlings (e.g. 700-lb. steer @12 cents/cwt
= 84 cents/day). The costs attributed to
grass were only those related to grass
production, pasture establishment
costs amortized over the productive
life of the stand, land rent equivalent,
fertilizer, herbicide, cross-fencing,
water maintenance and all labour —
and the same guideline for income and
expenses as the other crops.
In Saskatchewan the Western
Beef Development Centre (WBDC)
compared costs and returns between
annual cropping and perennial forage used to graze cow-calf pairs from
2000-05 on two adjacent parcels of
land belonging to Weldon, Sask.,
producer Lorne Christopherson. He
sowed 370 acres to meadow bromealfalfa in 2000 and continued to
crop an adjacent 230-acre parcel. His
original decision to seed forages was
based on the condition and topography of this field but it turned out to
be a profitable decision in more ways
than one.
Cropping expenses, yields and revenues on the cropland were compared
against establishment and maintenance
costs, grazing and hay yield on the
perennial forage parcel. Grazing was
valued at $1 per day for cow-calf pairs
and $1 per day for bulls. Hay was
valued at $110 per tonne. Average revenue per acre was lower for the forage parcel, however, so were expenses,
more than 50 per cent lower, resulting
in higher net returns per acre for the
forage over the cropped acres from
2000 to 2005.
“One has to keep in mind, in the
Grain versus Grass story Christopherson was charging cows $1 per day to
graze,” says WBDC economist Kathy
Larson. “This rate has not changed
very much today, however, the cost of
Net profit return 2000-11 (Source: AgriProfit$)
Spring wheat
Black soils ($/ac.)
Brown soils ($/ac.)
#farms
#farms
Grey wooded ($/ac.)
#farms
(431) $24.15
(407) $24.05
(251) $9.61
Barley
(376)
4.50
(149)
13.03
(296) 11.65
Canola
(589)
87.16
(167)
45.34
(422) 65.78
55.00
75.50
Pasture
96.00
land has increased and so have grain
prices. If the revenues are calculated
using prices for canola, flax and barley from 2008-10, the annual cropped
land would have higher net returns
than the forage acres. Changes in profitability for beef production and annual
cropping, can and have led to producers converting cropland to forage, and
vice versa.”
She is currently revising the economics of the Grain versus Grass
study in Saskatchewan and Alberta
based on the cost of production and
net returns for annual cropping and
cow-calf production.
The point is, says Mattson, “we
have to take these pieces of information and put them into the total
ranching picture, which includes land,
pasture, and livestock before we can
make a decision as to which combination will give us the optimum return
we would like.”
The “Wealthy Rancher” calculator can help keep these numbers up to
date. It is available online at www.Foragebeef.ca, or from Arnold Mattson
([email protected]).
C
— Duane McCartney
Duane McCartney is a retired forage
beef systems research scientist from
Lacombe, Alta.
VET ADVICE
Good cows don’t just happen
T
he beef cow is the heart and economic engine
of the beef industry. Millions of acres of grass
would go to waste if these unique eating
machines didn’t turn cellulose into protein while
successfully generating a calf at foot.
While the foundation of profitable beef production,
cows are too often taken for granted, like the dedicated
effort needed to better engineer our industry’s most important link in the production chain.
In the words of Dr. Rick Funston, reproductive physiologist University of Nebraska’s West Central Research
and Extension Centre, management of reproduction
remains the single most important challenge.
Few can disengage reproductive efficiency with calves
born every year, longevity of brood cows in the breeding
herd, and the maximum kilograms of weaned calf going
into top markets every fall. When all is said and done,
reproduction efficiency has a significant role in determining the quality of beef on store shelves — factors that go
beyond genetics.
Despite the importance of reproduction and breeding
programs, 55 per cent of beef herds still have no defined
breeding season. Without a sharply defined breeding season, uniformity of the calf crop naturally suffers. The lack
of a defined breeding season also complicates nutritional
management of the herd and identification of reproductive problems should they arise.
Heifer development lies at the heart of creating better
cows. In his address to the Western Canadian Association of
Bovine Practitioners in January, Funston talked about programmed heifer development as a means of identifying the
adaptability of females early. The adaptability of heifers has
allowed herds he has been involved with to shorten breeding seasons, breed heifers at lighter weights and reduce the
mature weight of breeding females. To do this successfully,
heifers must continue to grow through to calving.
Estrous synchronization is another of the tools industry should adapt. Synchronization programs (following
bull turn-in) used in well-managed herds have achieved 85
per cent pregnancy rates over a 35-day breeding season. A
45-day breeding season potentially increases weaning age
by 13 days (7.6 per cent), weaning weight by 9.6 per cent,
and an extra $35-$40 per calf at market. Calving times
also have a measureable effect on feedlot performance.
Increased carcass values of $90 or more (based on ADG,
carcass size and yield grade) are commonly associated
with calves born during the first 21 days of calving season
compared to cohorts born later.
As well, calving times contribute to extended improvement in performance of heifer progeny. Heifers retained as
herd replacements from groups born the first 21 days of
calving season showed a 12 per cent higher pregnancy rate
and 15 per cent more calves born during the first 21 days
of their first calving season. Overall lifetime production
of the breeding herd can be enhanced. A cow that consistently calves in the first 21 days of her eight- or nine-year
stay in a herd will produce the weaning weight equivalent
of an additional 1-1/2 to two calves in her lifetime compared to a cow that starts late and stays late. Sixty-one
per cent of cows in high-production herds calve in the first
21 days of the calving period with 85 and 94 per cent of
calves born by day 42 and 63 days respectively.
Sire selection accounts for more than 85 per cent of
the improvement in herd performance. Heterosis (crossbreeding), alone, enhances cow longevity, pounds of calf
weaned and net profit gained per cow of approximately
$70 per cow exposed.
Producers should consider implant programs, a tool
representing the difference between profit and loss in
many herds.
Optimal nutrition through the calendar year governs
the success of heifer development and the benefits that
get carried forward into their years as brood cows. Body
condition scores (BCS) are correlated with reproductive
events like postpartum interval, services per conception,
calving interval, milk production, weaning weight, and
calf survival. The most important factor influencing pregnancy rate and resumption of recycling in beef cattle is
body energy reserves during late pregnancy.
The science behind fetal programming and the influence
it has on heifer development is just starting to be understood. We know performance transcends simple genetics
and that stimuli experienced during fetal development
impacts postnatal growth and physiology. Management of
maternal diet during early gestation is linked to placental
programming and adequate nutrient transfer to the fetus.
Maternal nutrition later in gestation has been reported to
influence fetal organ development, muscle development,
postnatal calf performance carcass characteristics and
reproduction. Proper nutrient intake during critical points
of gestation appears to be linked to long-term heifer performance and health, especially fertility. While more study
is needed to better understand how far reaching the effects
of fetal programming might be, Funston believes producers
need to rethink nutrition management strategies beyond
the cow. In one study, 77 per cent of heifers born from
cows receiving protein supplementation during gestation
subsequently calved during the first 21 days of their first
calving season compared to 49 per cent of heifers from
cows not receiving protein supplementation. The overall
pregnancy rate was 93 per cent for daughters of supplemented dams, compared to 80 per cent for heifers whose
mothers received no supplement.
The take-home messages of Funston’s presentation to
bovine practitioners included:
• Focus on high percentage of early pregnancies
• Begin the journey of building a better cow with heifer
development
• Consider synchronization
• Optimal nutrition and BCS are critical
• Sound herd health programs are integral to success
• Match genetics to the environment
• Heterosis is too important to ignore
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 ([email protected]) or WCABP ([email protected]).
forage
A new sainfoin to
ward off bloat
But you’ll have to wait two years for seed
I
f you’re planning to reseed some
old alfalfa pastures or hayfields,
you may want to think ahead to
2015, when a new sainfoin cultivar, Mountainview should be commercially available.
Forage research scientist Dr. Surya
Acharya, who developed the new
variety at Ag Canada’s Lethbridge
Research Centre, explains that sainfoin
is a bloat-safe legume that naturally
contains condensed tannins in sufficient amounts to be able to prevent
bloat when fed or grazed with alfalfa.
Most of the feeding studies to prove
this concept have been carried out in
barns where feed intake is regulated.
Results have shown that as little as 10
per cent sainfoin in alfalfa hay will prevent bloat. In a grazing situation when
animals can pick and choose one over
the other, Acharya feels more confident
with 20 to 30 per cent sainfoin in a
stand with alfalfa to prevent bloat.
The condensed tannins in the sainfoin
combine with the abundant soluble protein from the alfalfa to slow the rate of
digestion in the rumen, he explains. Bloat
is also associated with a buildup of small
particles from alfalfa or other feeds that
set the stage for certain rumen microbes
to bloom, creating a slime that traps the
gas naturally produced by rumen digestion so that it can’t be expelled by burping. The accumulation of gas causes
discomfort and, if severe, death.
Cicer milkvetch, another bloat-safe
legume, can’t be substituted for sainfoin
to serve this purpose because it doesn’t
contain condensed tannins. It is classified bloat-safe because it is digested
more slowly in the rumen than legumes
that cause bloat like alfalfa and most
clovers. Birdsfoot trefoil, which is also
bloat safe, has condensed tannins, however, it isn’t as productive as sainfoin in
Western Canada.
Protein absorption and cattle performance aren’t affected by the presence of condensed tannins in sainfoin
because the protein-tannin bond breaks
once the rumen contents pass into the
abomasum and the protein can then be
30 Cattlemen / may 2013
digested and absorbed as bypass protein
in the lower intestine.
Performance of 600-weight calves
grazing mixed sainfoin-alfalfa was
evaluated during development of the
new variety. Gains of more than 2.2
pounds per day were achieved, which
is similar to what could be expected on
calves grazing pure alfalfa or on a backgrounding diet in a feedlot.
Mountainview preserves the valuable bloat-prevention characteristic
and shores up the major weaknesses of
the current sainfoin varieties, Melrose
and Nova — their inability to regrow
at a rate similar to alfalfa after cutting
or grazing, and to persist for more
than a year or two in a mixed stand
with alfalfa.
As a monoculture, the current sainfoin varieties are easy to establish and
last for years if carefully managed.
They were developed to produce big
yields in one cut and they do, Acharya says, typically yielding about 70
per cent of alfalfa’s annual yield. The
issue is that they don’t have sufficient
regrowth to produce much of a second cut let alone a third cut and the
stand will quickly be lost to multiple
cuts or grazings in a single season.
Consequently, bloat protection in a
mixed alfalfa-sainfoin stand is only
as good as the rate of regrowth of the
sainfoin and for as long as the sainfoin
can withstand the rigours of a two- or
three-cut alfalfa management regime.
This was exactly the case in grazing
trials at Lethbridge during the development of Mountainview. “We started
with a 50-50 mix of each of the experimental lines with AC Blue J alfalfa. In
the initial cut the first production year,
sainfoin was more than 60 per cent of
the total biomass because it grows rapidly in the spring and has earlier maturity than alfalfa,” Acharya explains.
“After taking three cuts every year for
three years, we still had 20 to 25 per
cent of the experimental populations
in the mixes at the third cut, but there
was only five to seven per cent Nova
left in the Nova-alfalfa mix.”
Mountainview sainfoin
In the last year, with Nova at five
per cent and the experimental lines at
25 per cent of total dry matter yield
in their respective mixes, 98 per cent
of the bloat incidences occurred in
the Nova-mix plots. There were only
two bloat incidences on the plots with
the experimental lines and both were
observed in the same animal, demonstrating that the new sainfoin populations regrew and persisted better than
Nova in a mixed stand.
Plots with monocultures of three
experimental lines, Nova and AC
Grazeland alfalfa as well as mixes of
each type of sainfoin with AC Grazeland alfalfa were established in 2008 at
Lethbridge, Saskatoon and Swift Current to evaluate forage performance.
The annual yields for all varieties and
mixes were higher in the irrigated plots
at Lethbridge compared to the dryland
plots. Mountainview out-yielded Nova
by 22 per cent under irrigation and by
42 per cent under dryland production.
At Saskatoon, where only dryland
plots were grown, yield and persistence in the Mountainview-AC Grazeland mixes with three cuts taken
in each of the three subsequent years
were similar to that of the Lethbridge
plot in a dryland system.
Yields were the lowest and Nova survived as well as the experimental lines
at Swift Current, where only one or two
cuts were taken each year because of
exceptionally dry conditions.
In initial studies at Lethbridge with
AC Longview alfalfa as the check, monocultures of some of the new sainfoin
lines did remarkably well, out-yielding
the alfalfa, Acharya says. This leads
him to suggest that producers could
expect Mountainview as a monoculture
to yield as good as or better than alfalfa
in areas with reasonable growing and
moisture conditions where two or three
cuts of alfalfa would be expected.
Other than yield, which is an
improvement in Mountainview by
virtue of its ability to regrow, there
wasn’t much to improve upon as far as
agronomic characteristics go. Melrose
and Nova are reported to have good
resistance to diseases and pests that
can cut into alfalfa yields, are able to
survive through dry spells, and to do
better on light and gravelly soils than
alfalfa. They get off to an early start
and mature quickly, with the window
of swathing or grazing being wider
than that for alfalfa because of better
leaf retention and hollow, succulent
stems, which help to retain quality and
digestibility later into maturity.
The old varieties are well adapted
to the Prairie environment. Melrose,
released in 1969, was developed from
selections of plants grown from seed
from Russia at the Ag Canada research
facilities at Lethbridge, Saskatoon and
Melfort. Nova, which started with seed
from Kazakhstan, was developed at
Lethbridge and released in 1980.
So it was time for an update, but
Acharya says we can’t take for granted
that the agronomic characteristics of
Mountainview will be the same as those
of the old varieties. Mountainview
captures selections from nine parental sources, with the largest percentage
being from a Romanian variety.
“What we do know for sure is that
Mountainview’s virtues are that it will
survive in a mix with alfalfa for three
or four years and it will grow back
after cutting in dryland and irrigated
systems,” he says.
The variety name, Mountainview,
doesn’t reflect its area of adaptation,
but is more of a prediction that this
new variety will deliver peak forage
production.
He feels there is likely more to be
learned about Mountainview’s disease
and pest resistance as uptake increases.
The real test of agronomic merit will
begin in 2015 when there is enough
seed to put it in field-scale tests in all
types of production systems and environments across the Prairies.
“Producers will identify the weaknesses we need to tackle,” he says,
likening the release of Mountainview
to the release of a new computer program. Developers release programs on
the basis of what they think clients will
want and wait for users’ feedback to
improve and update the programs.
“Mountainview won’t be the ‘be all
or end all,’” Acharya says. It’s the first
release of the sainfoin improvement
program, which started in 2001. Best
management practices for production
will be available for 2015.
C
— Debbie Furber
RESEARCH
Canada’s beef carcass
quality audit
Q
uality audits can identify
the most costly defects that
impact carcass value, and
help to track changes in
carcass quality over time. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association carried
out its first carcass quality audit in
1995. The defects identified in that
audit became the focus of the CCA’s
Quality Starts Here program, and Dr.
Joyce van Donkersgoed spent a lot of time educating
cattle producers about how to improve carcass quality
and value by dehorning calves early and moving brands
from the rib to the hip or shoulder. A followup audit
was carried out in 1999 to measure the progress made
in response to the Quality Starts Here program. Plans
to repeat the audit were postponed as a result of BSE,
but Canada’s third beef quality audit was completed
recently. This column gives a quick overview of how the
carcass quality audit was conducted, and some of the
key findings relevant to cow-calf operators.
What they did: The CCA’s Mark Klassen and a team
of technicians visited five packing plants that account
for more than 75 per cent of Canada’s beef kill. Each
plant was visited on two to three consecutive days in
the fall of 2010, winter and spring of 2011. More than
35,000 carcasses were evaluated on the processing
floor (brands, horns, tag, bruises, surface injection site
lesions, grubs, body condition score, liver abscesses and
condemnations) and in the cooler (carcass weight, marbling score, lean meat yield, conformation, lean and fat
colour).
What they learned: This study collected enough measurements to cover a few research columns. This month
focuses on two factors that are largely under the control
of cow-calf producers.
Horns are a risk to human and animal safety, and
increase the risk of carcass bruising and head condemnations. Removing horns is also painful, especially after
the horn has attached to the skull. The older an animal
is, the more dehorning hurts, the larger the wound, the
longer the healing time, and the bigger the impact on
animal growth and efficiency.
The 2010-11 Canadian carcass quality audit found
that 12 per cent of fed and 11 per cent of non-fed cattle
had scurs, stubs, tipped horns or full horns. In other
words, nearly 90 per cent of Canadian slaughter cattle
were either polled or properly dehorned. This is an
improvement from other audits. The 1999 Canadian
carcass quality audit found that 70 per cent of both fed
and non-fed cattle were polled or completely dehorned.
The most recent 2011 U.S. beef quality audit reported
that 75 per cent of fed cattle were hornless. Canada’s
beef industry actually lost more money because of
horns in 2010-11 ($192,535) than in 1999 ($106,003)
because the cost of labour to dehorn after slaughter has
increased. Losses would have been still larger if horns
were more common.
Brands don’t fall off, so they provide permanent
proof of ownership, and are sometimes required by law
(e.g. breeding stock exports to the U.S., and some feeder
finance loans). But branding reduces hide value. Rib
brands are especially costly, since hides with big holes
in the middle aren’t very useful for lining the interiors of
luxury cars. Branding is less painful than dehorning, but
it has become a target for animal activists.
The 2010-11 Canadian carcass quality audit found
that fewer than 10 per cent of fed cattle and less than
25 per cent of non-fed cattle had brands. This is much
lower than in the 1999 audit, when nearly 50 per cent
of all Canadian slaughter cattle had brands. Close to 50
per cent of fed cattle in the 2011 U.S. beef quality audit
were branded as well. Cattle with two or more brands
were very rare in the 2010-11 Canadian audit (below
one per cent of both fed and non-fed cattle) compared
to 1999 (nine per cent of fed, 17 per cent of non-fed) or
the 2011 U.S. audit (four per cent of fed cattle).
Canadian brands continue to move away from the
rib. Just over a third of brands were rib brands, compared to nearly half in 1999. Remember, this is a third
of the nine per cent of Canadian fed cattle that were
branded. This means that about three per cent of Canadian fed cattle had rib brands in 2010-11, compared
to nearly 25 per cent in 1999, and nine per cent in the
2011 U.S. audit. Canada’s beef industry lost $2.8 million due to branding in 2010-11, compared to $15.8
million in 1999.
What it means: Canadian cow-calf producers are
responding to market signals and consumer concerns
by using more polled genetics, dehorning earlier, and
branding less. In addition to improving carcass value,
measuring these improvements helps show regulators,
consumers, and the general public that animal welfare is
important to Canada’s cattle producers.
Visit www.beefresearch.ca for more information
about Beef Cattle Research Council activities funded
through the national checkoff.
The Beef Research Cluster is funded by the Canadian
Cattlemen’s Association and Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada to advance research and technology transfer
supporting the Canadian beef industry’s vision to be
recognized as a preferred supplier of healthy, high-quality beef, cattle and genetics.
— Reynold Bergen
Reynold Bergen is the science director for the Beef Cattle
Research Council. A portion of the national checkoff is
directed to the BCRC to fund research and development
activities to improve the competitiveness and sustainability of
Canada’s beef industry.
BEEF WATCH
MAY 2013
A service for cattle producers from the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and CATTLEMEN magazine
Canadian beef heifers (Breeding)
January 1
850
800
Thousand head
750
650
600
550
500
Canadian inventories stable
The January 1, 2013 cattle inventory report showed total
inventories up 0.5 per cent at 12.27 million head. This is the
second year in a row that total inventories have been up. The
increase in inventories came from a 2.5 per cent increase in
steers (>1 year), four per cent increase in heifers for slaughter, and 5.6 per cent increase in heifers for breeding. While
breeding heifer numbers have been moving steadily up since
hitting bottom in 2010 they are still 10 per cent below the
1990-2012 average and are 18 per cent below 1994 levels.
While total inventories were up for the second year in a
row, beef cow inventories were down one per cent at 3.95
million head, the smallest since 1994. Beef cows were down
3.9 per cent in the East but up 0.3 per cent in the West. British Columbia (up 1.4 per cent) and Alberta (up 0.2 per cent)
were the only provinces with more beef cows. All provinces
had more beef breeding heifers with the West up six per cent
and the East up two per cent.
While the calf crop continues to shrink with a smaller cow
herd, yearling cattle (steers and heifers) have increased over
the last two years as cattle are fed to heavier weights outside
of the feedlot before being placed. Cattle on feed on January 1 were down three per cent (including feedlots less than
1,000 head) resulting in feeder and calf supplies outside of
feedlots being up 2.8 per cent. However, these numbers can
quickly shrink if feeder exports continue at their current level
with first-quarter exports up 69 per cent from 2012. Feeder
exports in the first half of the year will reduce fed-cattle marketings in the fourth quarter.
CANADIAN CATTLE INVENTORIES
January 1, 2013 (1,000 head)
2012
2013
% Change
Bulls
213.2
210.4
-1.3%
Beef cows
3,996.80
3,956.20
-1.0%
Dairy cows
960.1
960.6
0.1%
Dairy heifers
468.4
472.6
0.9%
Beef heifers (breeding)
539.6
569.8
5.6%
Beef heifers (slaughter)
958.8
996.8
4.0%
Steers
1,260.60
1,292.50
2.5%
Calves
3,817.50
3,816.10
0.0%
Total
12,215.00
12,275.00
0.5%
Source: Statistics Canada
12
10
08
06
04
02
00
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
400
78
450
76
The January 1, 2013 cattle inventory reports showed
the Canadian industry firmly in the consolidation phase with
beef cows down one per cent while a drought-plagued U.S.
further reduced beef cows (-3 per cent). Improvements in
production efficiencies, particularly the jump in carcass
weights seen in 2012 raise the question on how much
herd expansion is really necessary in the current demand
climate.
U.S. herd contracting with drought
U.S. cattle inventories were down 1.6 per cent at 89.3 million head on January 1, 2013, the lowest level since 1952.
Beef cows were down 2.9 per cent at 29.29 million head as
drought and high feed costs keep bringing cows to market.
Beef replacement heifers were up a modest 1.9 per cent at
5.36 million head. This is the second year in a row that
breeding heifers have been up. However, like Canada they
are increasing from historically low levels.
The 2012 calf crop at 13.78 million head was down 2.3
per cent or 327,800 head to be the smallest since 1949.
Cattle on feed was down five per cent, and this number
differs from the cattle-on-feed reports because it accounts
for cattle in all sizes of feedlots compared to the monthly
on-feed report which survey’s feedlots with 1,000 head or
more. The number of calves and feeders outside of feedlots
was up one per cent from 2012’s very small inventory. The
U.S. CATTLE INVENTORIES
January 1, 2013 (million head)
2011
2012
2013
Yr./Yr.
Total cattle
92.7
90.8
89.3
-1.7%
All cows
40.0
39.4
38.5
-2.3%
Beef cows
30.8
30.2
29.3
-3.0%
Dairy cows
9.1
9.2
9.2
0.0%
Heifers >500 lbs.
19.6
19.3
19.1
-1.0%
Beef rep. heifers
5.1
5.3
5.4
1.9%
Dairy rep. heifers
4.6
4.6
4.7
2.2%
Other heifers
9.9
9.5
9.2
-3.2%
Steers >500 lbs.
16.4
15.8
15.8
0.0%
Bulls >500 lbs.
2.2
2.1
2.1
0.0%
Calves <500 lbs.
14.6
14.1
13.8
-2.1%
Calf crop
35.7
35.3
34.3
-2.8%
Feeder/calf supply
26.8
25.3
25.4
0.4%
Cattle on feed ALL sizes
14
14.1
13.4
-5.0%
Source: USDA
BEEF WATCH
Canadian heifer marketings
1,750
Thousand head
1,500
1,250
1,000
Alberta weekly
5 yr avg {98-02}
2011
2012
Cdn $ per cwt
2010
2012p
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
Canadian beef production
(Includes slaughter expo)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
600
65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13
2013
$80
Consumption, retail beef prices
and consumer demand
$70
$60
$50
Inventories are only an indicator of supplies, and an
imperfect one at that, considering production efficiency
gains in the industry. Beef production in 2012 (including live
slaughter exports) is estimated at 1.3 million tonnes down
four per cent from 2011 and now 17 per cent below the
2005-10 average. While cattle marketings were down 6.6 per
cent, carcass weights increased 22 lbs. for steers and 35 lbs.
for heifers offsetting some of the decline.
800
D1, 2 cow prices
$90
Beef Production
Thousand tonnes
Cow slaughter was down 16 per cent during 2012 at
455,000 head, with the closure of the Levinoff cow plant
in Quebec. This supported exports to the U.S. which were
up 55 per cent from the 2011 low levels to 174,300 head.
Cow exports jumped in the fourth quarter, with increased
numbers out of Western Canada as a result of the temporary closure of the Lakeside plant. Overall cow marketings
were only down four per cent in 2012 at 629,500 head.
Cow exports continue to be large in the first quarter of
2013 — over double the 2012 volumes.
In 2012, cow prices peaked the end of June at $85/cwt,
with a sharp drop in September before making a low of
$63/cwt in October as the temporary closure of the Brooks
plant softened domestic prices. Moving into 2013, cow
prices have been trending steady with year-ago levels ranging between $70-$75/cwt. Prices are expected to continue
that trend with a peak in June. Barring any unforeseen
incident, prices in the fourth quarter should trade well
above year ago with the low around $70/cwt.
1980
500
Cow supply
1978
750
1976
2011 drought in Texas and Oklahoma forced more cattle
into feedlots compared to the 2012 drought, but if there is
not more moisture before spring, a significant number of
these cattle will also be forced into feedlots in the next few
months. January 2013 marks the 15th year out of the last
17 where U.S. cattle inventories have shrunk, and given current weather conditions in the West, this trend is not likely
to change over the next year. USDA has revised projected
growth in U.S. beef cow inventories to not occur until 2015
at the earliest.
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
Heifer-to-steer slaughter ratio
Heifer marketings (domestic slaughter plus live exports)
in 2012 were down 9.4 per cent while steer marketings were
down 5.6 per cent. The heifers-to-steer slaughter ratio at
66 is just below 2011 and the long-term average of 67. In
order for expansion to occur this needs to decline further.
Heifer placements into feedlots as a percentage of total
placements dropped in the fourth quarter of 2012 to 38 per
cent compared to 45 per cent in 2011. However, in the first
two months of 2013 heifer placements at 34 per cent is very
similar to the year before at 35 per cent.
While domestic production was smaller, this was offset
by even smaller exports and larger imports leaving net beef
supplies in Canada up in 2012. Slight growth in population meant, per capita beef consumption was up. Canadian
retailers took advantage of all the media coverage about the
U.S drought last summer and its impact on consumer prices.
It is always easier to move retail prices up when consumers
are expecting it rather than six months later when they have
forgotten the reasons why. Consequently, deflated retail beef
prices averaged $7.75/kg up 5.5 per cent from 2011 and 8.2
per cent above 2010. Larger consumption combined with
higher retail prices resulted in beef demand being up in 2012.
Maintaining this gain in demand will be tough in 2013 as
consumers shop around for the best price.
TRADE
Beef exports in 2012 were down 19 per cent in volume
and nine per cent in value at 271,000 tonnes valued at $1.2
Beef Watch is prepared by the staff of Canfax and Canfax Research
Services, divisions of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association
billion. Exports (including live slaughter cattle) as a percentage of production at 42.6 per cent was down only modestly
from 45 per cent in 2011. Monthly exports declined sharply
in September with third- and fourth-quarter exports 27 per
cent and 43 per cent below year-ago levels. Monthly volumes
in the fourth quarter ranged between 14,000-16,000 tonnes,
the smallest since September 2003, as the Lakeside plant did
not have access to the U.S. market from late September to
mid-December.
• Exports to the U.S. were down 21 per cent in volume
and nine per cent in value at 197,000 tonnes valued at
$874.5 million. The U.S. represented 73 per cent of total
export volumes down from 81 per cent in 2005 and is
now similar to 2001 when 72 per cent of beef exports
went south.
• Exports to Mexico were down 24 per cent in volume and
21 per cent in value at 24,300 tonnes valued at $120.7
million. The Mexican market represents nine per cent of
total volumes down from 18 per cent in 2004 or 14 per
cent in 2001. Volumes to Mexico have declined over the
last two years as liquidation during the severe drought
there has increased domestic production and reduced
imports.
• Exports to Hong Kong and Macau were down one per cent
in volume and up one per cent in value at 21,300 tonnes
valued at $90.6 million. This is Canada’s third-largest market with 7.9 per cent of total volumes up from 2.3 per cent
in 2004.
• Exports to Japan were down five per cent in volume and
steady in value at 11,300 tonnes valued at $64 million.
This represented 4.2 per cent of exports, similar to 2002,
and just below the peak in 2001 when six per cent of
exports went to Japan. With under-30-month access in
2013 it is expected that six per cent of export volumes will
go to Japan this year.
• Exports to Russia have definitely cooled off over the last
couple of years and were at 4,900 tonnes in 2012, down
from 10,000 tonnes in 2010. Russia, while a large beef
importer, has requested beef and pork from Canada and
the U.S. be ractopamine free.
Exports help maximize the cut-out value by placing each
cut into the highest-value market.
Cut-out and fed-cattle prices
Alberta fed-steer prices in 2012 made a record high averaging $112/cwt, trading in a narrow range throughout most
of the year between $106-$115/cwt before moving up from
$106/cwt to $119/cwt in the fourth quarter. Alberta fedsteers prices have moved lower from $116/cwt at the beginning of January to $113/cwt at the end of March.
The cut-out value which was expected to stabilize after
JBS bought the Lakeside plant continues to be volatile. It
appears there may be some competition between packers for
customers as JBS looks to regain business Cargill took while
the Lakeside plant was closed. Consequently, boxed beef
prices are lower than anticipated this spring and keeping a
lid on the fed market. Monthly AAA cut-out values peaked
at $198/cwt last June and have moved steadily lower, except
for a brief period in January. The cut-out averaged $173/cwt
Replacement ratios
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.
In the first quarter of 2013, replacement ratios of all
categories were lower than a year ago, as high feed costs
and poor profit margin lowered feedlots’ willingness to pay
for feeder cattle. Heifer calves were down the most at 1.27
in the West compared to 1.48 in Q1 2012. Yearling heifers
at 1.04 were down the most in the East compared to 1.19
a year ago. At 1.10, shortkeep steers were down the least
in both regions as they are least affected by high feed costs
given the shorter time on feed.
Replacement price ratio
(Replacement cattle price divided by slaughter price)
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
QUARTER
Q1 EAST
WEST
Q2 EAST
WEST
Q3 EAST
WEST
Q4 EAST
WEST
Q1 EAST
WEST
Q2 EAST
WEST
Q3 EAST
WEST
Q4 EAST
WEST
Q1 EAST
WEST
Heifer
calves
Steer
calves
Yearling
heifers
Yearling
steers
Shortkeep
steers
(400500 lb.)
(500600 lb.)
(600700 lb.)
(700800 lb.)
(800900 lb.)
1.32
1.36
1.22
1.35
1.26
1.39
1.32
1.37
1.28
1.48*
1.35*
1.47
1.34
1.41
1.27
1.32
1.12
1.27
1.40
1.43
1.31
1.44
1.31
1.45
1.35
1.40
1.37
1.56*
1.43*
1.56*
1.40
1.46
1.35
1.37
1.24
1.38
1.20
1.19
1.15
1.22
1.17
1.24
1.16
1.17
1.19
1.27
1.25*
1.29*
1.24
1.27
1.15
1.14
1.04
1.13
1.22
1.20
1.18
1.23
1.18
1.28
1.17
1.23
1.21
1.31
1.27*
1.32*
1.24
1.30
1.19
1.19
1.13
1.16
1.16
1.14
1.11
1.13
1.16
1.21
1.16
1.17
1.15
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.24*
1.23*
1.17
1.14
1.10
1.10
*Record highs, East and West
in February 2013 $11 below year-ago levels. That appears
to be the spring low with the cut-out improving throughout
March up $3 to $176/cwt however, this is still $14 below
year-ago levels.
Alberta fed-steer prices as a percentage of the AAA cutout have been higher than 60 per cent since August 2012
with the all-time record high 67.8 per cent occurring in
December. A higher fed-cattle cut-out ratio indicates narrower packer margins. This will make moving the fed-cattle
market higher this spring difficult without significant movement in the boxed beef complex.
BEEF WATCH
Beef Watch is prepared by the staff of Canfax and Canfax Research
Services, divisions of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association
Feed grains
Lethbridge barley prices averaged $286/tonne in March
up 25 per cent from last year. Canadian barley production
is projected to be up 12 per cent in 2013 to nine million
tonnes. However, this will still be 20 per cent below the longterm average for barley production of 11.4 million tonnes.
Yes, demand for barley is lower with fewer cattle and hogs
in Canada but ending stocks will only see a modest recovery
at 1.5 million tonnes up from the record low of 800,000
tonnes projected for the 2012-13 crop year but well below
the historic level of 2.3 million tonnes. Continued tight ending stocks will make barley prices vulnerable to increases if
weather challenges result in lower yields again.
U.S. analysts are projecting another large corn crop in
2013 up 27-36 per cent from 2012 with expectations that
for the second year in a row a record-large number of acres
will be planted to corn (around 97.3 million acres) and yields
will go back to the trend line (around 163.5 bu./acre) as the
Corn Belt has received moisture with some winter snowstorms. That kind of an increase could pressure corn prices
lower to around $5/bushel and create some breathing room
for feedlots.
U.S. drought monitor
U.S. Drought Monitor
April 16, 2013
Valid 7 a.m. EDT
S
L
SL
S
L
S
S
L
S
SL
Canadian barley ending stocks
L
6
L
SL
L
S
3
Intensity:
D0 Abnormally Dry
D1 Drought - Moderate
D2 Drought - Severe
D3 Drought - Extreme
D4 Drought - Exceptional
2
The Drought Monitor focuses on broad-scale conditions.
Local conditions may vary. See accompanying text summary
for forecast statements.
4
13/14f
10/11
07/08
04/05
01/02
98/99
95/96
92/93
89/90
86/87
83/84
80/81
Omaha corn prices averaged C $303/tonne (US$7.50/
bushel) in March up 20 per cent from last year. After two
years of drought, the U.S. is looking for rain and a bumper
corn crop to reduce grain prices. The Corn Belt which was
extremely dry in 2012 has received moisture this winter,
and it appears like the drought is moving west. This should
help the corn situation. However, Nebraska is extremely dry.
Unless the Midwest receives moisture, the feeding industry
will continue to feel the pressure of high feed costs.
SL
Drought Impact Types:
Delineates dominant impacts
L
S
L
SL
S
S = Short-Term, typically <6 months
(e.g. agriculture, grasslands)
L = Long-Term, typically >6 months
(e.g. hydrology, ecology)
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
1
SL
L
SL
5
0
April 16, 2013
Released Thursday, April 18, 2013
Author: David
Miskus,Thursday,
NOAA/NWS/NCEP/CPC
Released
April 18, 2013
Author: David Miskus, NOAA/NWS/NCEP/CPC
Feeder prices
The Alberta 850-lb. steer price has averaged $128/cwt
in the first quarter of 2013, down $11 from last spring but
up $10 from 2011. Feeder prices are being pressured by soft
fed-cattle prices and high feed costs. Feeder prices in 2013
will depend on the upcoming corn crop with weather being
the main risk factor this summer. If a record-large crop is
not realized expect feeder prices to continue at current levels. Calf prices (550-lb. steers) so far in 2013 are trending
in line with 2011 prices, when the fourth quarter averaged
$158/cwt.
Search Canada’s top
agriculture publications
with just a single click.
Network
SEARCH
BUILDING TRUST IN CANADIAN BEEF
Grass, genetics and beef quality
Industry quality starts at the farm, say Jill and Kelly Burkhardt
No pressure.
That’s jokingly what Jill and Kelly
Burkhardt have to remind themselves
as they start each day on their Crooked
Lake Farm near Gwynne, in central
Alberta. Kelly is the fifth generation
of his family to farm this land. In fact
the home quarter has never been sold,
always handed down to the next generation.
It’s a legacy with expectations. Two
years into owning the family land and
just over eight since they came back to
do that, they have a young family underfoot. And they are building a beef operation with clear vision of family values,
and an understanding that beef industry
leadership depends on regular operations like theirs.
Young Alberta couple says producers
are not only building their business,
they’re building their industr y.
Think growth
The first years back they sold their
cattle through conventional channels.
This past year they marketed their cattle
to one of the larger branded beef operations in the Alberta marketplace.
“We don’t want to fall into a rut producing the same thing over and over
simply because that’s what we have
always done,” says Jill. “And we don’t
want all of our eggs in one basket. We’re
always asking if there is a better way to
sell our cattle. Should we market directly
ourselves?”
Keep learning
Part of the formula is to keep current.
Both have education in animal science
and grass management. And both feel
strongly about continual learning.
Jill, who grew up in Montana’s
ranch country, has a degree in range
management and worked as a range
agrologist in Alberta. She is currently
second vice-president of the International Mountain Section for Society for
Range Management.
“We’ve always tried to take advantage of learning opportunities,” says
Kelly describing how he and his father
took in a Verified Beef Production (VBP)
workshop. “As a producer you have to
try and keep up with the times.
“We’re always looking for an edge
in an industry that is so competitive
now. You have to be there or fall behind.
People want a beef product that is rea-
sonably produced but they want a goodquality product.”
Build an industry
One of the learning lessons is that
producers are not only building their
business, they’re building their industry.
Their VBP experience gave them confidence in what they were doing properly
but also the things they could improve.
They adjusted their record-keeping
system. Easy-to-access records made
it easy to participate in the marketing
opportunity last year.
“One of the biggest changes was that
we sat down with our vet and built a
herd health plan, says Kelly. “We worked
out a schedule on what medications we
should be using and when. Now we
watch them carefully and weigh options
before we medicate. And we keep better
records on the whole herd, not just the
ones we gave medications to.”
Audit ease
One question the Burkhardts admit
they wondered about was the VBP audit.
Both chuckle that their concerns were
unwarranted.
“We liked the audit experience and
learned a number of things from it,”
says Jill.
“They’re not coming to take the
farm, they’re coming to help the industry,” adds Kelly. “They want everything
we want, a good strong industry down
the road.”
DEVELOPED BY PRODUCERS. DEVELOPED FOR CONSUMERS
Every Ralgro implant has the potential to add up
to 23 extra pounds* to a suckling calf.
The profitable weigh.
*Data on file. **Rate of return may vary depending on market conditions.
® Registered trademark of Schering-Plough Animal Health Corporation. Used under license.
Merck Animal Health, operating in Canada as Intervet Canada Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. MERCK is a trademark of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.,
a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. Copyright © 2011 Intervet International B.V., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. All rights reserved.
C C A
A
Martin Unrau
is president of
the Canadian
Cattlemen’s
Association
r e p o r t s
dvocacy and trade were the main issues
occupying the Canadian Cattlemen’s
Association (CCA) in April. Russia’s
introduction of even more rigid protocols for ractopamine effectively reduced the
already limited amount of eligible Canadian beef
and offal exports nearly to zero. As there is no science-based justification for banning ractopamine,
Russia’s zero-tolerance stance is a non-tariff trade
barrier to prevent imports of meat. Russia has
placed similar bans against beef and meat from
other countries, including the U.S. and Mexico.
Russia’s ban on ractopamine is groundless but
it represents a significant issue for packing plants
in Canada. In mid-April, Russia’s veterinary and
phytosanitary service had placed all of Canada’s
beef-packing plants on temporary suspension for
export eligibility. For facilities to retain their eligibility to export ractopamine-free beef to Russia
they must dedicate their slaughter facilities to processing only animals raised without ractopamine.
We have already heard that at least one of the
smaller facilities has made a decision to no longer
process cattle that have been fed ractopamine
which is of course a burden for producers who
can no longer process their animals at that facility
regardless of the destination for their beef.
To add some additional perspective, as bad as
the Russia situation is for beef, it is much more
significant for pork. Russia is the third-largest
market for Canadian pork, worth $500 million a
year. Last year, Canada exported about $15 million of beef and offal to Russia.
At issue here is that Russia, a new member of
the World Trade Organization (WTO), is clearly
acting outside of its obligations as a member
country. The safety of ractopamine has been scientifically demonstrated; currently 28 regulatory
authorities globally have affirmed the human food
safety of meat from animals fed ractopamine. The
CCA would fully support formal trade action
against Russia at the WTO if progress is not forthcoming in ongoing discussions underway between
the Government of Canada and Russia.
Retaliatory actions through the WTO are a
real possibility on the U.S. country-of-origin labelling (COOL) issue. CCA representatives continue
to spend a significant amount of time on the
COOL file, with advocacy work in Washington,
D.C. to build support for the only plausible fix to
the situation. In meetings held in mid-April, the
CCA encouraged key industry allies including the
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the
American Meat Institute to continue their opposition of the proposed rule as stringently as they
have and to communicate the significant economic
harm and job losses to the U.S. beef industry that
would entail should the proposed rule pass.
The CCA laid out its position on the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed regulation for COOL published in the federal register
by Martin Unrau
of March 12, 2013 in full in comments submitted
on April 11. In its comments the CCA recommended that the USDA proposed rule for COOL
be withdrawn as it fails to bring the U.S. into
compliance with its WTO obligations, and instead
increases the level of discrimination and cost to
livestock producers in Canada and Mexico. This
position is supported by CCA’s U.S. industry allies,
many of whom note that Canada and Mexico are
the U.S.’s largest export markets.
Nearly 900 comments on USDA’s regulatory
proposal were submitted. The USDA is now going
through the process of reviewing the comments
and providing responses to each of the substantive arguments. In the meantime, the CCA will
continue to advocate for a workable solution to
the issue.
The CCA appreciates the Government of Canada’s strong messaging regarding its intention to
implement retaliatory actions should the USDA
fail to comply with its WTO obligations by eliminating the necessity for U.S. feedlots and meat
processors to practise segregation. Minister Ritz
has noted that Canada could retaliate to the tune
of $1 billion for the beef and pork sectors. The
CCA’s position remains that the only way the U.S.
can be in compliance with the WTO is to amend
the COOL legislation to allow either a single
mandatory label for all meat produced in the U.S.
or to allow for voluntary labelling. Until this outcome is achieved, the CCA will continue to work
with its allies in the U.S. and with the Government
of Canada to pursue retaliatory or compensation
options through the WTO.
Negotiations for a trade deal with the European Union continue. It does appear at this point
that although our extremely ambitious objective
of achieving unlimited beef access in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)
will not be accomplished, we remain optimistic
that duty-free quota will be created that is large
enough to encourage Canadian producers to produce cattle according to the EU hormone- and
beta-agonist-free protocol. The quota also needs
to be large enough for Canadian packers to invest
in developing the EU market.
Another essential component of an agreement
will be a commitment by the EU to recognize
the Canadian federal meat-processing system as
equivalent to the EU. Equivalence means that
although Canada’s procedures may be different
from those in the EU, the outcome of safe food is
achieved and Canadian firms operating under the
Canadian system will be authorized to export to
the EU. Without achieving this outcome, the size
of the quota is meaningless and the CCA would
not be able to support a CETA. As the negotiating process continues, the CCA will continue to
advise the negotiators and political decision makers as to what it will take for Canadian producers
to support an eventual agreement.
HOLISTIC RANCHING
The road to success
T
he desire for success is universal. Our definitions of success may vary but deep down
we would all like to feel that
we are successful. I feel I have achieved
a high degree of success as I have been
living my dream for many years. I
want to share some of the things that
have helped me achieve success. My
hope is that these ideas or similar ones
may contribute to your success.
The first requirement is to know what you want. This
requires a clear goal based on your values. Once you
know what you want you must take concrete, positive
steps to achieve it.
Five suggestions for success:
1. Believe in yourself.
2. Believe in your spouse.
3. Find and follow good role models.
4. Do the necessary thinking and planning.
5. Work hard.
Believe in yourself. This is essential. I am reminded of
Henry Ford’s saying, “If you think you can or you think you
can’t you are right.” Your basic thoughts about success tend
to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have always had a
high degree of self-confidence. If something needs to be done
I am confident that I can figure out how to do it. I credit my
parents for that because they always believed in me and
supported me. That made it easy to believe in myself. I am
reminded of the time that I wanted to disperse our cow herd
in the 1980s. My dad’s comment was, “Do what you think
is best. I believe in you.”
If you are a parent I encourage you to tell your children
(don’t assume that they know) that they have your unconditional love and support. There is nothing like parental support and approval to help us succeed.
At this point I feel pretty confident and am well on the
road to success. But from time to time my self-confidence
may waver. When it does I turn to my second point.
Believe in your spouse. Like most married couples
Bev and I have lots of small things we may not agree on.
Fortunately when it comes to the big things Bev offers
me unconditional support. When I have suggested we
should make some major change in our business (sell the
cows, buy our hay, or borrow a million dollars) she says,
“Do what you think is best, I believe in you.” What do
you think that kind of support does for my self-confidence? I encourage everyone to strengthen their marriage and relationships. Together you can do so much
more than you can alone. I know that I would not enjoy
the success I have without Bev’s support. Even with all
that backing If my self-confidence should waver I turn to
my third point.
Find and follow good role models. I have been blessed
with good role models in my life. When I was young it
was my parents, my family and their friends. I have had
role models that I have known, respected and looked up
to for 50 or 60 years. What a blessing. As I grew I was
always able to find good role models no matter where
I was or what I was doing. This included my university
years, my veterinary career and especially my ranching career. H M has given me the wonderful opportunity to continue to be influenced by good role models.
When I was about 50 I realized that I knew people who
could really help me grow, increase my knowledge and
skills and become a better person. This personal growth
appealed to me, so I phoned some of these people and
said, “I’d like to get to know you better and learn from
you. Would you allow me to come and spend some time
with you?” Amazingly people always said yes to my
request. The result was I set up a flexible program of
learning. I spent as much as a day a month for up to six
months with some of my mentors. I drove up to eight
hours one way to invest in my learning. The result was
rapid personal growth that resulted in a higher degree of
success. Another interesting thing also happened. These
people became lifelong friends.
I encourage you to look around. Is there someone you
might learn from? Why not set up a personal mentoring
program with that person? Your first reaction may well
be, “I can’t afford the time.” My response would be, can
you afford not to invest in yourself?
As I look at my life today I am confident that no matter what situation may arise I will know someone I can
turn to for wisdom, guidance and support. What do you
think that kind of support does for my self-confidence?
By moving to my fourth point I won’t increase my
self-confidence but I will increase my chance of success.
Do the necessary thinking and planning. Before making any major decision or change it is vital to work it out
on paper. If you can’t make it work on paper chances are
it won’t work in the real world. I suggest planning out
for a minimum of one year. If you are making a major
change projecting out three years would be even better.
At this stage we have good self-confidence and a
workable plan. Now it is time to move to my fifth point.
Work hard. Hard work is the last step in achieving
success. It’s like the icing on the cake. It allows us to
savour the fruits of our self-confidence and planning.
Remember: working will, where wishing won’t.
As I examine my life closely I realize that most of my
success has come from the wonderful people I have had
the privilege to know and to learn from. This gives me
a sense of humility and a deep sense of gratitude. My
desire is to help other people achieve success as others
have helped me.
I invite you to use these points in any way that may
be helpful to you. I believe we can all be successful. We
are surrounded by unlimited opportunity. I sincerely
hope you achieve the success you desire.
— Don Campbell
Don Campbell ranches with his family at Meadow Lake,
Sask., and teaches Holistic Management courses. He can be
reached at 306-236-6088 or [email protected].
P r i m e
c u t s
by Steve Kay
COOL changes
threaten ties
A North
American
view of the
meat industry.
Steve Kay is
publisher and
editor of
Cattle Buyers
Weekly
C
posed changes to the current COOL regulations
ompetition and co-ordination are
take effect justifiably appalls Canadian producthe lifeblood of the North American
ers. Canadian fed cattle already take a $25- to
livestock and meat industry. Hence
$40-per-head hit because of COOL, says the
the long-established ties between proCanadian Cattlemen’s Association. This will
ducers and packers on both sides of the border.
increase to $90-$100 if the new COOL changes
Canadian cattle, from calves to cull cows, have
are implemented and a worst-case scenario
come south for years while Canadian and U.S.
ensues, with U.S. feedlots and packers ceasing
beef have moved in both directions.
to buy any Canadian cattle.
U.S. packers a long time ago realized the
U.S. packers and most producers are also
value not only in harvesting Canadian fed cattle
appalled at USDA’s proposed changes and have
but in operating their own plants in Canada.
warned they could lead to millions of dollars
That’s why Cargill opened a brand-new beefof added costs and plant closures, notably in
processing plant in High River, Alta., in 1989
the Pacific Northwest and Southern Plains. AB
then bought Trillium Meats in Toronto and BetFoods operates a plant in Toppenish, Wash.,
ter Beef in Guelph, Ont. That’s why IBP (later
with about 25 per cent of its annual supply of
to become part of Tyson Foods) bought Lakefed cattle coming from Canada. It’s little wonside Farm Industries in Brooks, Alta., in 1994.
der it told USDA that its proposed changes will
That’s why JBS USA late last year agreed to buy
impose “significant negative effects on our commost of those assets from the beleaguered XL
pany, the northwest cattle industry and mid-size
Foods.
packing plants throughout the U.S.”
Competition between Canadian fed-beef proTyson Foods is also
cessors and between
reliant on Canadian
them and U.S. packcattle. AB Foods says
ers helped underpin
“there is no better
the fed-cattle market Canadian fed cattle already
illustration of the valuin Western and even take a $25- to $40-per-head
able co-dependence on
Eastern Canada. But
multiple-origin cattle
Canada’s first BSE case hit because of COOL. This
than the 2005 closing
in 2003 and then the
of Tyson’s Boise, Idaho
implementation of U.S. will increase to $90-$100
plant” as a result of
country-of-origin label- if the new COOL changes
BSE earlier closing the
ling (COOL) in 2009
border to Canadian
damaged this competi- are implemented
cattle. AB Foods could
tion and the strength
also have mentioned the 2003 closure of Simof the western Canadian fed-cattle market.
plot Meat Products’ plant in Nampa, Idaho, in
COOL in particular damaged the concept of an
late 2003.
integrated North American cattle market, and
Should AB Foods and Tyson’s Pasco, Wash.,
Canadian feeder and fed-cattle exports to the
plant decide not to take any Canadian cattle,
U.S. began to decline.
competition in the western Canadian fed-cattle
This left more Canadian cattle on the Canamarket would suffer further. As Grier notes,
dian market, resulting in a reduction of compeUSDA data indicate that 185,000 Canadian
tition, particularly in Western Canada. Today,
fed cattle in 2012 went to Tyson Pasco and AB
Alberta cattle feeders are becoming more and
Foods, while another 132,000 head went to JBS
more concerned about what they see as “singleUSA’s Hyrum, Utah plant.
desk selling,” says Kevin Grier, senior market
What a tragedy then that an ill-conceived
analyst at the George Morris Centre in Guelph.
labelling program that should never have
There isn’t literally single-desk selling but the
become law in the first place now threatens the
use of the term reveals how limited cattle feeders
vital co-ordination between the cattle and beef
believe their marketing options have become.
sectors in North America.
The prospect, therefore, that USDA’s pro-
Found new equipment – online.
Your business depends on the internet.
you can depend on Xplornet.
These days, a fast, reliable Internet connection is a must for most every business. Xplornet offers wireless business Internet connectivity
across Canada, including many places where wireline service is unavailable. And we offer peace of mind, through our reliable
network, which leverages the latest technologies, like 4G. With Xplornet’s Business Internet Solutions, your business is connected.
Faster internet where you work and live! Call Xplornet today at 1-877-337-2459 to get started!
• 24/7/365 toll-free canadian custoMer service,
and priority technical support if you ever need
help at your location.
• choose froM a range of business-grade
packages, with speeds up to 10 Mbps.2 or choose a
residential plan, starting froM just $44.99/Month.1
• 30-day Money back guarantee.3
• supports Multiple users at the saMe tiMe.4
no equipment
to buy!
4G Business
plans
starting from
$99.99/month1
for speeds up to 5 Mbps.2
Activation fees apply.
For All oF Canada
xplornet.com 1.877.337.2459
Where 4G Satellite service is available. Taxes will apply. 2Actual speed online may vary with your technical configuration, Internet traffic, server and other factors. Traffic management applies to all packages.
Xplornet high-speed Internet service includes a 30-day money-back guarantee. If you are dissatisfied with your service for any reason, you will receive a refund of all amounts paid to Xplornet if you cancel
your subscription within 30 days of activation. 4A router is required for multiple users and may be purchased from your local dealer. Xplornet® is a trade-mark of Xplornet Communications Inc. © Xplornet
Communications Inc., 2013.
1
3
FBC SAT CAT EQUIP ADMAT 04/2013
HigH-Speed internet
STRAIGHT FROM THE HIP
The supper solution
T
he question of feeding the
world may be getting rhetorical. Yet it is fair to ask
where we stand in the discussion as a nation and as an industry. And, it is important to be realistic
about why we cannot or will not feed
the world now.
Despite the best of efforts, I am
learning that I cannot change the
world and that the layers that make up this globe need
to be peeled back one at a time. This is not to say that
one cannot make the world in which we live or a small
part of the world a better place, but when it comes to
feeding the world outside of the model of charity, we
first must address what nations do today that impedes
feeding millions tomorrow.
Canadians are the most wasteful people on earth
throwing out 40 per cent of their food. Food fools, we
spend a measly nine per cent of our disposable income
on food, shun the cost of domestic food and then turn
aft from discussions on food security or policy. Food
in the field rots because we cannot agree on interprovincial trade and are young in the international scene.
And while we ponder over supper if we will eat too
much another man under the same sky ponders if he
will have enough to eat. Unfortunately, we are not
alone. Food waste globally averages 35 per cent and
has been a hot political discussion for decades in other
areas of the world, especially the U.K. In underdeveloped countries food waste is a result of corruption,
theft and inadequate storage. In developing countries
the food may be stored adequately but transportation systems do not support delivery. In developed
countries food wastage may be a result of production
beyond contract or quota and is disposed of from grocery shelves, processors and plates.
As there are five trading companies that handle the
food in the world, it is easy to see how the interruption
in food delivery to port of call would be devastation.
Even a tiny bit of hoarding has a huge impact on price
and we experienced that in 2008. Driving the price up
for corporate gain seldom helps those who need it most
as 80 per cent of the world lives in poverty and half suffer from malnutrition. Even if the food were available
they do not have the money or credit to buy it and may
be limited by gender, class, caste or community. This
presents a larger issue of economic stability, especially
postwar.
Food inflation keeps even working families nutritionally challenged and the price of beef is also a contributing factor. How is it that the price of beef is at a
record high when demand is down by 20 per cent and
beef production is up by 20 per cent? Price manipulation is huge in food and we only have to look at who
owns what to make our case clear. A full 95 per cent
of all food is tied up in just five crops of which the
greatest consumption is in sugar, maize, rice and
wheat. Four companies own and control 90 per cent
of the world’s grain with just seven companies controlling the fertilizer in the world, five controlling
the chemical and only three companies controlling
the world’s seed for food. As for getting food to the
table, only 10 companies control 70 per cent of food
retail. In the future, despite our best efforts, it will be
these companies that determine if the world is or is
not fed.
As all countries continue to urbanize, the pressure
for quick and affordable food will increase and all
civilizations will become more dependent on a healthy
agricultural sector. Rather than enhance agriculture and
view food production as a social policy, many developed countries, Canada included, have chosen to reach
to trading partners. This unhealthy action does not
support food security or sovereignty. It leaves even the
most developed countries, such as Canada that is one
of the world’s top 10 importers of food, exposed. Akin
to single-trait selection, choosing one action to secure
food instead of taking a systems or holistic approach
will jeopardize other parts of food production and its
availability.
Weather patterns most certainly influence food production so the access to water, drought-resistant plants
or glasshouse production is a high priority. As I travel,
I see food systems developed around the absolute assurance of water access and most food production expansion is in glasshouses. Water is so important that it is
the weapon of war and of industry. The ancient water
systems in South America keep farmers going and they
need it secured for food production. Diverting water
away from food for other industry will not feed the
world.
In all places and at all times, there is food wasted
and deteriorated beyond human consumption because
it has been thrown away, forgotten, hoarded, delayed
in delivery, is en route, produced beyond contract or
quota, undesirable or unaffordable. In Canada the $27
billion worth of food we discard each year equates to
about 1,200 sandwiches per person. More than half is
thrown away from the kitchen table. Being part of the
supper solution and meeting the needs of a current and
future hungry world starts by peeling back an earthly
layer at home.
It is not a question for our nation or our industry of
if we will feed ourselves and the world in 2050 — we
already could. The question is: When we will, collectively
through our actions and our policies, choose to do so?
— Brenda Schoepp
Brenda Schoepp is a Nuffield Scholar who travels extensively
exploring agriculture and meeting the people, who feed,
clothe and educate our world. A motivating speaker and
mentor she works with young entrepreneurs across Canada
and is the founder of Women in Search of Excellence. She can
be contacted through her website www.brendaschoepp.com.
All rights reserved. Brenda Schoepp 2013
NEWS ROUNDUP
GREENER
PASTURES
RANCHING LTD.
Presents:
TRADE
JAPAN SALES
RECORD SMALL RISE
Statistics Canada reported a slight
increase in sales of Canadian beef to
Japan in February, producing the first
hopeful sign that the February 1 decision by Japan to raise the age limit on
Canadian beef imports to 30 months
from 20 was going to benefit the industry’s export picture.
Up to the end of February Canadian exporters shipped 1,509 tonnes
of beef to Japan, about eight per cent
more than in 2012 and only slightly
less than the volume sold in 2011. By
comparison January 2013 sales were
down five per cent in volume and 22
per cent in value compared to 2012.
It is hard to say how much of this
bump can be credited to the new
import policy.
When asked why U.S. exports to
Japan were not larger in February
with the enhanced access Philip Seng,
the CEO of the U.S. Meat Export Federation suggested a number of packers
decided to finish up the supplies of
20-month cattle in their pipeline before
they began processing 30-month cattle
for the Japanese market. He expects
a much greater response when the
March numbers come out.
Statistics Canada’s March numbers
are released in May.
Seng says USMEF expects U.S. beef
sales to Japan to increase by 45 per
cent to 217,000 tonnes by the end of
the year.
Canadian exports of beef from animals under 21 months of age for the
past three years were worth approximately $70 million to $75 million per
year, making it Canada’s third-largest
market. The Canadian Cattlemen’s
Association expects the increased
access to double the potential market
value to $140 million or $150 million.
If the February numbers create any
concern at all it is the drop in sales of
fresh chilled cuts, which were down
by 50 per cent or more from chilled
sales for January and February over
the last three years. The lost volume
was made up in frozen cuts but the
dollar value for all shipments in the
first two months this year came in at
$7.5 million, about a million less than
last year.
Japan’s purchases since 2009 have
followed a fairly regular pattern of 55
to 58 per cent frozen cuts, 20 to 24 per
cent fresh chilled cuts and the remainder as offal.
Age verification
Another question raised by the
change to a 30-month import policy is
what this will mean for the industry’s
attempts to age verify Canadian beef.
The new Japanese protocols allow
packers to certify age by birth certificate or mouthing cattle at slaughter.
Age verification was initially
brought in to accommodate the Japanese demand for under-21-month cattle, and with this restriction removed
it is bound to raise questions about
the necessity to continue recording
the birth dates of individual animal or
groups of calves within the same herd.
Some cattlemen continued to gain
some benefit from U.S. buyers for verified fed cattle but at least one major
feeder told us that practice stopped on
February 1.
*Year-Round Grazing Systems*
A Business
Management School
Topics include:
• Human Resources
• Economics and Finance
• Pasture Calculations
• Grazing Management
• Pasture Rejuvenation
• Weed Control
• Cell Designs/Water Systems
• Swath Grazing/Bale Grazing
Location: Westlock, AB
When: Nov. 5th, 6th & 7th, 2013
Or ask us about setting up a school in your area.
Can you Graze 365 days a year? We provide a 3-day course
that will take you right into the design and planning of a
year-round grazing system. The course tuition is $800/Farm
Unit, which allows two members from your farm business to
attend. This course is well worth the investment.
Also be sure to attend:
*Profitable Pastures*
When: April 16th and 17th, 2013
To register please contact:
Steve Kenyon
Greener Pastures Ranching Ltd.
(780) 307-2275
www.greenerpasturesranching.com
[email protected]
Barbed Wire Fence
FENCE IS FENCE, RIGHT?
WRONG
. Cutting corners with cheap fence only leads to more
repairs and more cattle getting out. Four point “Ruthless” and two point
“Defender” barbed wire from Red Brand keep your herd off the fence and
in the pasture where they belong. Since 1889, one brand of barbed wire
has stood the test of time – and cattle.
The most trusted name in fencing. The one. The only. Red Brand.
Find dealers, expert advice and installation videos at redbrand.com • 800.447.6444
News
Roundup
The decision is essentially left in the
hands of the packers. As for producers
they appear to have been drifting away
from age verification for some time,
according to the statistics of the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency.
Despite having mandatory verification in a couple of provinces the
number of births recorded has declined
from 2.34 million in 2008 to 1.34
million in 2012. Some of this may be
explained by the declining numbers of
cattle and producers raising cattle over
that time. Another possibility is that
some calves born in 2012 may not be
registered on the CCIA system until
they are marketed this year.
The number of producers submitting birth dates in Alberta dropped
from 13,812 in 2008 to 11,674 in
2011 and 10,414 in 2012. Again, the
2012 figure may still undergo some
adjustment with time. A similar pattern shows up in all the provinces on
the CCIA system.
The number of active premises on
the Canadian Livestock Tracking System at March 31 were: B.C., 1,230;
Alberta, 13,326; Saskatchewan, 5,957;
Manitoba, 3,280; Ontario, 4,103 and
Maritimes, 111. Quebec is not listed in
the CCIA statistics.
Currently producers signing up to
use the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association BIXS cattle-tracking system are
required to age verify their calves.
marketing
Western Export
Patterns shifting
First-quarter fed-cattle exports to the
U.S. were largely unchanged from last
year but George Morris Centre analyst
Kevin Grier, in his mid-April Canadian
Cattle Buyer newsletter, found plenty
to interest him in the details of where
those cattle were going, and what that
may say about changing marketing patterns in Western Canada.
First up, the Northwest, where
deliveries to Tyson in Pasco, Washington and Agri-Beef in Yakima dropped
by five per cent. “The reduction only
works out to 3,000 fed cattle for the
quarter but it is still a fairly signifi-
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
We’d appreciate it if you could tell us a
little about yourself. It makes it easier for
us to keep your main interests in focus
 I’m ranching or farming
Enterprise
Total beef cattle
Yearlings on feed/pasture
Registered cows
Fed cattle (sold yearly)
Commercial cows
Horses
Calves on feed/pasture
Other livestock
# of head
 I no longer take an active part in farming
If not an owner/operator of a farm, are you:
 In agribusiness (bank, elevator, ag supplies, etc.)
 Other (please specify) ____________________
My approximate age is:
 a) Under 35  b) 36 to 44
 d) 55 to 64  e) 65 or over
 c) 45 to 54
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!
What do you think of: On a scale of 1 to 5, how do
you and your family like these features?
5 – I always watch for it; let’s see more of it
4 – I regularly read it and like it
3 – I usually read it
2 – There are things I’d rather read
1 – I don’t want it; get rid of it
Regular Columns
5 4 3
cant reduction when you are only talking about two plants, says Grier. “It is
doubly interesting because slaughter in
that region is up. That means that the
two plants are relying more on their
own regional cattle supply.”
Farther east volumes going to JBS
in Hyrum, Utah were up by two per
cent. With Alberta’s first-quarter fed
slaughter down 11 per cent Grier wonders if this could be a preview of how
JBS is managing its fed-cattle supplies
between Brooks, Alta. and Hyrum.
Even farther east fed-cattle exports
were up by 125 per cent in USDA
Region 7. Grier suspects Tyson’s Lexington, Nebraska plant was the most
likely destination for a lot of those
animals.
The feeder cattle report was even
more dramatic with a 60 per cent first
quarter increase in exports. The number going to Region 7 (which includes
Nebraska) jumped nearly five times as
much as last year and Region 8 taking in
Colorado and Utah saw a large increase
as well. “The other interesting point is
that those feeder cattle did not go to the
Washington state region,” says Grier.
The message, he says, is that feed
pricing and selling hedges are working
far better in Nebraska in the first quar-
Regular Columns
News Roundup
Purely Purebred
The Markets
5
4
3
2
1
Market Talk
Sales and Events
2 1 Nutrition
Comment
Research
Special features
5 4 3 2 1
Newsmakers
Letters
Calving Issue (Jan.)
CCA Reports
Custom Feedlot Guide (Sep.)
Prime Cuts
Stock Buyers’ Guide (Aug.)
Straight From The Hip
Animal Health Special (Sep.)
Holistic Ranching
Beef Watch (May & Nov.)
What would you like to see? __________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
How much time do you and your family spend reading
1666 Dublin Avenue
Canadian Cattlemen?  Under 2 hours  Over 2 hours
Winnipeg, Man. R3H 0H1
AlbertA beef Producers
2013 semi-AnnuAl meeting
ter than the northwest U.S. and Alberta. Alberta feedlots
face the added burden of a wide and volatile basis.
“The bottom line is that there is a big shift in the structure of demand for western feeder cattle,” says Grier. “Those
cattle come out of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They are
being drawn out of the supply chain in Alberta, but they are
also being drawn out of the supply chain for Pasco, Yakima
and Hyrum as well.
“Naturally this has supply implications for packers in
both the U.S. northwest and Alberta. It has already had
implications for Alberta cattle feeders.”
AlbertA beef Producers
2013 semi-AnnuAl meeting
AlbertA beef producers 2013
semi-AnnuAl meeting tAkes plAce
AlbertA beef
producers
2013
AlbertA
beef
Producers
June 11, 2013
At the meeting
deltA tAkes
south
semi-AnnuAl
plAce
2013
semi-AnnuAl
meeting
June
11,
2013
At
the
deltA
south
hotel in edmonton.
hotel in edmonton.
PACKERS
AlbertA beef producers 2013
for more informAtion
or to tAkes
registerplAce
go to
semi-AnnuAl
meeting
P.E.I. CONTINUES TO SUPPORT for more informAtion
or
to
register
go
to
www.AlbertAbeef.org/About/
June
11, 2013 At the deltA south
ATLANTIC BEEF
AnnuAl-generAl-meeting/
hotel in edmonton.
The Prince Edward Island government has budgeted
another $1.5 million for the Atlantic Beef Products plant at
Albany for 2013. That’s the maximum allowed under a cap
the province imposed on its support for the plant last year.
The province hopes to bolster its investment in the plant
with the launch of a new certified Prince Edward Island beef
brand, presumably with some innovation money from the
new product and market development program announced
last month under the new federal/provincial Growing Forward 2 funding framework.
Atlantic Beef, incorporated in 2003 and built in partnership with local producers in 2005, sources beef from P.E.I.,
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The plant booked losses
each year from its outset, even following a 2007 deal for a
cash infusion from the federal, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick
and P.E.I. governments.
The P.E.I. government has put over $40 million in capital
and operating subsidies into the plant since 2005.
for more informAtion or to register go to
ENVIRONMENT
BEEF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
PINS DOWN GHG LEVELS
Researchers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
(AAFC) have conducted a first-of-its-kind life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from producing a
kilogram of beef in Canada.
Using sophisticated Holos modelling software this assessContinued on page 46
Ontario Limousin board of directors. Back row (l to r):
Murray Shaw, Garr y Smar t, Br yce Allen, Wayne Lawrence. Front row (l to r): Melanie Gollinger, Brandon
Hollingswor th, Tadomi Hunt, Tim Seifried, Justin Burgess. Missing: Neil Brown, Sean Enright.
P R O U D LY P R E S E N T S
The 2013 Livestock Markets
Association of Canada Annual Convention
& Auctioneer Championships
June 6 - June 8, 2013
The headquarters are the
Deerfoot Inn and Casino in Calgary, and the
Auctioneers competition will be at
Calgary Public Stockyards in Strathmore AB
Guest Speaker; Mr. Steve Kay Editor & Publisher of Cattle
Buyers Weekly. Mr. Kay is recognized as an authoritative &
impartial observer of the North American Meat &
Livestock Industry.
Steve will address issues like the potential cattle shortage &
the effects on the demand & prices in the future, proposed
COOL regulations, impact of JBS moving into Canada & the
outlook for the beef industry over the next 3 years.
Convention kicks off Thurs evening with
reception and hospitality
Auctioneer Championship Friday 9:00 AM at VJV Foothills, Stavely, Alberta
For more information and to register go to:
www.lmacmarkets.ca
News
Roundup
ment has captured a comprehensive,
whole-farm view of what contributes to
emissions from beef operations during
the full life cycle of the cattle.
“The issue of GHG emissions has
been particularly challenging for the
beef industry in part because of the
multiple production levels and different
approaches that exist within the beef
sector,” says Dr. Karen Beauchemin of
AAFC Lethbridge, a lead researcher
on the project. “We now have a much
clearer picture of this issue and what
some of the best options might be
to improve our efficiency and meet
the rising pressures and expectations
around this issue.”
With the assessment in place,
Beauchemin says the focus now is on
finding ways to reduce emissions that
✷
D ON’T MI SS
✷
“THE WELSH BLACK
ADVANTAGE”
Canadian Welsh Black Cattle Society
Box 546 Trochu, AB T0M 2C0 Ph/Fax: (403) 442-4372
✷
www.canadianwelshblackcattle.com
More on the web
those s”
“famou
MARKET PLACE
✷
plainjans.com
Roper
gloves
620-8�2-5��
from
�
p la i n j a n s
Better Bulls...Better Results.
www.salerscanada.com
Forage Additive
For alfalfa silage, corn
silage and baled hay
Dry granular or ready-to-use liquid
Value of dry matter saved
- treatment cost = dollars saved
INTERNATIONAL STOCK FOOD
1-877-473-2474
[email protected]
www.isfcanada.ca
more on the web
plainjans.com
also have economic benefits for producers. “We’re encouraged that the findings show the Canadian beef sector is
already highly efficient and there is good
potential for further improvements that
fit this ‘win-win’ scenario.
“Our objective was to develop a
model that would provide a solid, complete-system representation of commercial conditions in Western Canada,”
says Beauchemin. “Our simulated farm
included both a cow-calf operation and
a feedlot, along with cropland needed
to supply all feed and bedding for the
cattle.”
The farm situated in the county of
Vulcan in southern Alberta has 120
cows, four bulls plus the calves which
are fattened in a feedlot modelled
along the lines of real feedlots in southern Alberta. The farm was run inside
the Holos software over eight years to
gauge the GHG emissions through a full
life cycle from birth to slaughter of the
breeding stock.
Perhaps the most eye-opening result
came when they compared emissions
from the different stages of production.
The mature cow-calf component which
spends much of their lives grazing forage accounted for 61 per cent of all
emissions. Add in another 19 per cent
to raise the breeding stock to maturity
and the cow-calf fraction accounted
for 80 per cent of the total.
“In reality this breakdown might
vary somewhat, depending on the
specific management practices used,”
says Beauchemin. In Western Canada, for example, weaned calves are
sometimes fed forage-based diets over
winter and placed back onto pasture
the following summer before entering
the feedlot, rather than being placed
directly into feedlots as in our simulation. Such variations, however, are
unlikely to displace the cow-calf system as the primary source of GHG
emissions resulting from beef-producing farms.”
About 84 per cent of the enteric
Beef emissions
methane came from the cow-calf side,
mostly mature cows.
The results show enteric methane
“Feedlots tend to be the target when
accounts for 63 per cent of the emispeople talk about environmental footsions from producing a kilogram of
print and emissions concerns,” says
beef, while nitrous oxide from manure
Beauchemin. “However, when you
makes up 23 per cent. Methane from
consider emissions on a per-kilogrammanure adds five per cent, carbon
of-beef-produced basis, feedlots are
dioxide
from
energy
use
another
five
CSA Bus. Card Jan04 12/9/03 11:21 AM Page 1
actually extremely efficient. We found
per cent and nitrous oxide from soil
the feedlot system actually accounts
four per cent.
for only a relatively small fraction
of enteric methane from overall beef
Unbeatable Maternal Performance
production. Animals are at the feedlot
stage for a relatively short time and the
grain-based diets are very efficient for
producing beef.”
Canadian Simmental Association
403-250-7979
The results also point to enteric
13 - 4101 19 Street, N.E. Calgary, AB
methane from the cow-calf side as the
www.simmental.com
main target for any strategy to reduce
GHG emissions. “Improvements at
CANADIAN HEREFORD
any stage are good but the ‘bang for
ASSOCIATION
the buck’ in terms of overall emissions
5160 Skyline Way NE
Calgary, Alberta T2E 6V1
reduction is greater from the cow-calf
Phone: (403) 275-2662
Toll Free (888) 836-7242
sector,” says Beauchemin. A 10 per
Fax: (403) 295-1333
Toll Free: (888) 824-2329
www.hereford.ca
cent reduction in cow-calf emissions,
More Efficient Means More Hereford
for example would reduce whole-farm
emissions about four times as much as
a 10 per cent reduction at the feedlot.
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
“A GOOD BOTTOM LINE STARTS WITH A GREAT COW HERD!”
CANADIAN GELBVIEH ASSOCIATION
5160 Skyline Way NE, CALGARY, ALBERTA, T2E 6V1
PH: (403) 250-8640 • FAX: (403) 291-5624
WWW.GELBVIEH.CA
Opportunities for progress
With this base information in hand
researchers now have a tool to measure more efficient and profitable ways
to reduce the overall emissions from
producing a kilogram of beef, and document the outcomes. Strategies that
decrease enteric methane production
from forage-based diets or improve
efficiency of feed conversion now have
an extra environmental benefit.
Also, because the emissions were
PHOTO COURTESY: WENDY BELCHER
quantified and analyzed on a meat
basis, the researchers observed that
any issues with reproductive performance or death losses have a major
negative impact on the emissions picture. “Anything we can do to enhance
the reproductive performance of cows,
or decrease death losses of calves, can
significantly improve the overall numbers,” says Beauchemin.
GHG mitigation opportunities
evaluated recently by AAFC researchers include extending the backgrounding phase, extending the finishing
phase, feeding oilseeds, feeding distillers dried grains, improving forage
quality for breeding stock, increasing
the number of calves weaned, and
changes in land management such as
seeding previously cropped land for
use as pasture.
The life cycle assessment reinforced
that Canada is already in the top tier
of efficient beef production systems in
the world. “We can always get better,
but the bottom line is we are doing
very well already,” she says.
However, she says it is important to
keep a healthy perspective on what is
needed and what makes sense. While
the figures point to enteric methane
from cow-calf production as a major
Canadian Beef Breeds Council board of directors. Back row (l to r): Gar y
Smith, Gordon Stephenson, Rod Remin, Wendy Belcher, Rob Smith, Roger
Peters. Front row (l to r): Doug Fee, executive director; David Bolduc, president; Garner Debolt, vice-president; Byron Templeton, past president.
emissions source, there are other factors to consider before pushing for
substantial changes based on emissions
targets alone. For example, because the
cow-calf system relies extensively on
pastures and forage crops, it has a beneficial role in preserving or augmenting
soil carbon and preserving rangeland
biodiversity and wildlife habitat.
“We need to be careful about pushing any changes based on livestock
emissions targets alone without consid-
ering an even broader environmental
context,” she says.
CORRECTION
The cover photo in our April issue
was mistakenly credited to field editor
Debbie Furber. In fact the shot was submitted by Iain Aitken of Rimbey, Alta.,
for possible use in a 2010 article we ran
on his Luing cattle operation.
C
Featuring The
Livestock Centre
Located in Lot H
Includes:
Seminars
Livestock Equipment Demonstrations
Industry Trade Show Booths
www.myfarmshow.com
June 19-21, 2013
Evraz Place, Regina, SK, Canada
purely
purebred
Suggestions are
always welcome.
My phone number
is 403-325-1695
Email:
deb.wilson@
fbcpublishing.com
Deborah WILSON
◆ So here is an Angus show steer from
decades ago. How our cattle have
changed! Anyone know who these
folks are, or the year?
◆ Dr. Larry Delver was honoured by
the Canadian Beef Breeds Council
with the presentation of the Don Matthews Award for Excellence in Animal Health. This award was instituted
in honour of the late Don Matthews,
Angus breeder, and a past president
and driving force behind the Canadian
Beef Breeds Council. Matthews had a
passion for matters relating to animal
health and international trade, foundational pillars of the council. The award
is presented by the board of directors
of the council to individuals who have
contributed exemplary service to the
development of the Canadian purebred
beef cattle industry in the field of animal health.
The presentation was made by Rob
Matthews of Highland Stock Farms
at the annual general meeting of the
Canadian Beef Breeds Council, held in
March. Rob is a son of the late Don
Matthews. Rob praised Dr. Delver for
his work with the federal government
when he served as a federal veterinarian and his many years of service and
contribution to the industry. Larry was
described “as one who understood the
beef cattle industry and was still working to help market quality and healthy
Canadian genetics.”
◆ Gelbvieh will be the first beef breed
in Canada with GE EPDs (GenomicEnhanced) which will be rolled out in
the summer 2013 EPDs. The benefits
of GE EPDs are improved accuracies
for young, non-parent animals, assessing an animal’s genetic potential at a
younger age, reaching breeding goals in
fewer generations, and obtaining data
on traits that are difficult or expensive to measure. GE EPDs offer an all-
in-one, easy-to-understand value for
seedstock breeders and commercial
producers to make better herd sire and
replacement female selections.
◆ This issue I will start with profiles
of the 2013 participants in the Cattlemen’s Young Leaders Program. Unfortunately the mentor selection process
had not been completed at press time:
Amanda Elzinga
was raised near Peers,
Alta., on a dairy farm,
which converted to
a cow-calf operation
about 10 years ago.
Her passion for the
cattle industry was
Amanda Elzinga realized at a young
age, and she always
knew she wanted to pursue a career
in agriculture. 4-H was a big part of
Amanda’s life, and she completed
dairy, horse and beef projects. After
high school, she worked at a feedlot
for a year, and then attended Lakeland College in Vermilion, where she
obtained a diploma in animal science
and was active in both the Stockmen’s
Club and the Judging Club. From there
she transferred to the University of
Alberta where she earned a B.Sc. in
agriculture, majoring in animal science.
Amanda spent two summers calving
out cows and looking after a purebred herd, and believes the experience
gained from working on other opera-
◆ The “Blast from the Past” photo in the April issue was contributed by Lois (Gordon) McRae and she identified the individuals in the photo as: Bill Small, Labatt beer sponsor rep, John Owen, Lloyd McIntyre, Rodney James, Lois (Gordon) McRae,
unknown, John Draper, Jim Senkbeil, Bill McLeod, Darryl Proctor, Mac Draper, Ted Tait, Barry Gordon, Barry Bennett on the
Block. The steer sold for $21 a pound to a group of progressive Simmental breeders promoting Simmental cattle in 1975.
A sideline to this photo is a husband and wife bet on a certain individual in the photo. There was a sizable bet made — a
bale shredder/processor! Sorry to say (not really) but the wife won the bet! The husband will be making a purchase to help her
with chores when he is on the road or away from home. You know who you are and I will be checking in with you at Agribition to confirm the purchase — bring pictures please!
sales
tions to be invaluable. After completing her degree in December 2011, she
started work as a nutrition/production
consultant at Co-op Feeds in Edmonton. Still actively involved in the family
farm, Amanda hopes to continue to
expand her own commercial herd. She
is excited for the opportunity CYL is
offering her and is looking forward
to broadening her perspective on the
cattle industry on both the domestic
and international level.
Daniel Doerksen
grew up on his family’s mixed farming
and ranching operation near Gem, Alta.
He married Kimberly
in 2008 and they
have two children
Daniel Doerksen Gradey and Kyleah.
In high school, Daniel was actively involved in his community including the Gem 4-H Beef
Club, serving as vice-president for two
years and president for two years. He
graduated from Lethbridge Community College with a diploma in animal
science in 2005. Among other community activities Daniel serves as the
president of the Gem Grazing Association and as a volunteer fireman. Along
with his family, he runs a purebred
Hereford and commercial cow herd
where the focus is on raising efficient,
moderate-framed cattle. They sell bulls
by private treaty and use their own
bulls in their commercial cow herd.
Daniel looks forward to expanding his
knowledge and experience of the beef
industry and the organizations that
develop and implement strategies for
success in agriculture.
◆ The Canadian Angus Association
has elected three new board members
who will join the current board during
the Canadian Angus National Convention in Guelph, Ont., June 5-10. Bob
Hahn and David Sibbald were elected
to represent Alberta and Tammi Ribey
has been elected to represent Ontario.
All three will serve three-year terms.
The additions were made after a bylaw
amendment to increase the number of
directors to 12 from 10 was passed by
the membership. The bylaw has been
forwarded to the Canadian minister of
agriculture and agri-food for approval.
Board members are elected by the
Peak Dot Ranch Bull and Female Sale
April 3, Wood Mountain, Sask.
74 Fall bulls, av. $5,705
126 Yearling bulls, av. $4,524
200 Total bulls, av. $4,961
55 Open heifers, av. $3,633
255 Total, av $4,675
Crowfoot Cattle Co.
Red and Black Angus Bull Sale
April 4, Standard, Alta.
38 Red yearlings, av. $5,542
48 Black yearlings, av. $3,314
26 Black two-year-olds, av. $3,496
20 Red two-year-olds, av. 3,670
132 Total, av. $4,045
35th Annual Short Grass
Bull and Female Sale
April 20, Aneroid, Sask.
69 Bulls, av. $4,275.
24 Registered heifers, av. $3,637
263 Commercial heifers, av. $1,080
membership within their province. The
new board contains four Alberta directors, three from Saskatchewan and one
from each of the other regions. Officers
are elected from within the board.
Hahn has been a purebred breeder
since 2000 raising Black and Red
Bull Sale Results
Pick Of The Crop Bull Sale
Listowel, Ont. — March 30
Number
of lots sold
Average
price
Breed
2012
2013
2012
2013
10
11
Angus
$2,510
$3,155
4
5
Charolais
3,350
3,340
3
2
Composite
4,100
3,630
9
5
Limousin
3,188
3,037
9
8
Simmental
3,077
3,175
35
31
TOTAL
3,062
3,240
Maritime Beef Testing Society Annual Bull Sale
Nappan, N.S. — April 6
Number
of lots sold
Average
price
Breed
2012
2013
2012
2013
12
10
Angus
$3,083
$3,580
14
13
Charolais
3,567
3,384
—
1
Gelbvieh
—
1,600
6
5
Hereford
2,208
2,080
5
4
Hybrid F1 Cross
2,990
2,225
6
7
Limousin
2,375
2,542
4
—
Red Angus
3,200
—
4
3
Salers
1,762
2,333
2
3
Shorthorn
2,250
2,000
18
21
Simmental
2,794
2,509
71
67
TOTAL
2,873
2,749
Douglas Bull Test Station Sale
Douglas, Man. — April 6
Number
of lots sold
Breed
2012
2013
51
37
2
Average
price
2012
2013
Angus
$2,893
$2,838
2
Blonde d’Aquitaine
2,800
2,000
13
1
Charolais
2,703
2,300
17
—
Composite
2,688
—
1
—
Gelbvieh
2,400
—
7
4
Limousin
2,971
2,400
4
—
Maine-Anjou
3,800
—
4
2
Salers
2,500
2,400
9
12
Shorthorn
2,861
2,425
17
10
Simmental
3,029
2,060
125
68
TOTAL
2,877
2,579
Angus near Edmonton, Alta. He has served on the Alberta
Angus Association board for five years including holding the
office of treasurer. Hahn is an accountant with his own firm,
Hahn Houle Chartered Accountants.
Dave Sibbald, with his wife Mary Beth, his parents and
sons, operates the 300-head herd at Triple S Red Angus west
of Calgary. They also maintain a commercial cow-calf operation to complement their seedstock herd bulls. Over the years,
Sibbald has served in numerous volunteer ventures including
president of the Canadian Red Angus Promotion Society and
was recently elected second vice-chairman of the Calgary
Stampede board of directors.
Tammi Ribey maintains a 400-acre farm near the village
of Paisley in Bruce County in conjunction with a 25-year-old
mixed veterinary practice. She has donated much of her spare
time to the Ontario Angus Association over the past six years
finishing up with a two-year stint as president.
◆ The Spring Classic Open Prospect Steer and Heifer Show
was held April 20 at the Olds Agricultural Society in Olds,
Alberta. The show was well attended with 137 entries, and
the list of winners is as follows: Champion Open Steer —
Chance Jackson, Sedley, Sask.; Reserve Open Steer — Ryley
and Toby Noble, Lloydminster, Sask.; Champion Open Heifer
— Kylina Chalack, Carstairs, Alta.; Reserve Open Heifer
— Kathryn Dolliver, Stettler, Alta.; Champion Junior Steer —
Riley Gutzke, Weyburn, Sask.; Reserve Junior Steer — Colton
Symens, Claresholm, Alta.; Champion Junior Heifer — Riley
Chalack, Carstairs, Alta.; Reserve Junior Heifer — Anthony
Murphy, Wetaskawin, Alta.
◆ The annual meeting of the Canadian Beef Breeds Council
elected David Bolduc as president of its newly remodelled
board of directors for 2013-14 in late March. He is also the
current past president of the Canadian Angus Association.
David and his brother Dyce along with their families operate Cudlobe Angus near Stavely, Alta. They run 500 mother
cows and conduct an annual bull sale. The families have
exported cattle around the world highlighted by their entry
into Argentina in the 1970s, and sales to the Queen Mother’s
herd in the 1980s.
David and Dyce Bolduc are the only two brothers who have
both served as president of the Canadian Angus Association.
◆ Bryce Allen was recently selected as president of the
Ontario Limousin Association at its annual meeting in late
March. Filling out the executive are Gary Smart, vice-president; Melanie Gollinger, secretary; Tim Seifried, treasurer and
Tadomi Hunt, director.
◆ I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to attend the
Student Marketing Competition Final Rounds at the National
Agri-Marketing Convention, in Kansas City in the middle of
April. The University of Guelph student team placed second
at the NAMA 2013 competition. To place second out of 29
college and university teams from across North America
was a very proud moment for the University of Guelph and
all the Canadians in attendance. I have to say that this team
of young people rocked their presentation and nailed every
question that the judges threw at them. The University of Saskatchewan also had a team compete in the competition. For
more information on the Canadian Agri-Marketing Association and the provincial chapters go to www.cama.org.
C
The
markets
Market
Summary
debbie mcmillin
Fed Cattle
Fed-cattle prices in 2013 continue
to disappoint compared to historical
trends and the expectations we all held
for the 2013 spring market. By the
second week of April Alberta feeders
averaged $112.70/cwt, down $3.25 on
the year and $4.75 from the start of
2013. The cash-to-cash basis remains
wide by any recent standard at -17.38/
cwt compared to the five-year average
of -6.68.
Prices over the past month held virtually steady causing some sellers to
hold over their inventory. That coupled
with slow meat movement and longer
lift times at the packer has resulted in
rising carcass weights. The cumulative
average steer carcass weight in 2013 is
up four pounds from a year ago, which
is not ideal when facing an already
slow pipeline. Look for a correction as
more calves enter the slaughter mix in
the upcoming month.
By mid-April steer slaughter reached
a total of 335,818 head, two per cent
more than a year ago, while heifer
slaughter was down 21 per cent at
202,300 head, showing some producers are holding back more heifers for
breeding. Exports of fed cattle were up
one per cent in the first quarter of 2013
at 108,584 head.
The 968,626 head on feed in
Alberta and Saskatchewan on April 1
was down six per cent from last year.
Placements in March increased eight
per cent compared to 2012 but remain
10 per cent less than the five-year average. This historically low level of placements is the result of a combination of
the smaller cow herd and feeder population with recent negative feeding
margins, higher feed costs and lower
futures markets.
Feeder Cattle
The negative feeding margins in the
fed-cattle market, a particularly long
Deb’s Outlook
Fed Cattle
winter and recent winter storms across
the Prairies have combined to keep a
lid on the grass cattle market as green
grass seems further away than it would
be in a normal year. At mid-month
lighter-weight 550-lb. steers in central Alberta were averaging $154.17,
which is $24.33/cwt under the same
week in 2012 and down $3 from the
start of the year. Heavier 850-weight
feeders were trading better than $10
below a year ago in mid-April at
$122.75/cwt, and down $7.25 from
the start of the year. The feeder basis
is -17.75/cwt under the U.S., -2.75/
cwt wider than the five-year average.
Auction market volumes did pick
up in recent weeks as more producers needed to open some pen space
for calving cows, or gave up waiting
for prices to improve on their backgrounded cattle.
A Canadian dollar hovering under
par and limited feeder cattle numbers
available south of the border has kept
U.S. buyers looking to Canada to fill
their pens. Exports of feeder cattle to
the end of March totalled 81,569 head,
which is a huge 65 per cent increase
when compared to the first quarter of
2012.
Non-Fed Cattle
Solid demand for trim and grinding products has led to a good market
for cows and bulls thus far in 2013.
Alberta D1,2 prices at mid-April averaged slightly higher than 2012 at
$78.83, even with larger numbers of
cows coming to town. That’s $2.33
better than a year ago but still down
$1.60/cwt from 2011. Demand for
cows is evident domestically however it’s the export demand that has
really grown in 2013. Through the
first quarter more than double the
number of cows have been exported
to slaughter in the U.S., a total of
80,840 head compared to 37,533
head in the first quarter of 2012. Cow
slaughter through the first week in
April was actually down slightly at
134.534, eight per cent fewer than
we slaughtered last year. The butcher
bull market shows much the same in
2013, with prices hovering in the high
upper $80s. The mid-April average
was $88.92/cwt. Local bull slaughter
is very small, only 602 in the whole
The industry needs to get more
current, both in terms of meat and
live cattle. Supplies delivered in the
first quarter and those anticipated
through April and May are still considered small. However, slow meat
movement, longer pickup times and
reduced kill have led to some carryover and larger carcasses. The carcass weights should decrease in size
in the coming month as more calves
enter the slaughter mix. It’s to be
hoped warmer weather will spur on
more beef specials and consumer
interest in the barbecue. Prices typically soften through the end of the
second quarter as the market looks
for summer lows. If meat sales pick
up and the industry gets more current prices may hold steady in the
near term.
Feeder Cattle
The grass market may still gain
some energy as the grass starts to
green up in the coming weeks. However, long-term losses at the feedlot
have put a lid on feeder cattle prices
in 2013 and that picture cannot
improve until feedlot margins begin
to turn around. It’s still uncertain
how the new COOL rule will affect
export demand and feeder cattle
prices.
Non-Fed Cattle
Some parts of the Prairies were
hit by severe winter storms in the
midst of calving season and bad
weather tends to drive more cows
into the auction in the short term.
However, strong consumer demand
will trump any bump in supplies in
the coming month, which will lead
to strong cow and bull prices with
a seasonal high likely in the second
quarter.
country since the start of 2013. However exports of butcher bulls to the
U.S. climbed by 66 per cent over last
year to a total of 15,991 head though
the first quarter.
— Debbie McMillin
Debbie McMillin is a market analyst who
ranches at Hanna, Alta.
More markets➤
Break-even Prices on A-Grade Steers
140
ALBERTA
170
120
100
90
Steer Calves (500-600 lb.)
180
130
110
Market Prices
190
160
western
Market
Summary
150
140
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
130
95
155
ONTARIO
145
D1,2 Cows
85
135
75
125
65
115
55
105
95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013
Canfax weighted average
price on A-Grade steers
45
Ontario
2012
Market
Ontario prices based on a 50/50 east/west mix
Summary
O ntario
2013
2012
A lberta
Break-even price
2013
for steers on date sold
2013
2012
Kevin Grier2012
Market Summary (to April 6)
April 2013 prices*
Alber ta
Yearling steers (850 lb.)............... $123.64/cwt
Barley................................................. 6.33/bu.
Barley silage..................................... 79.13/ton
Cost of gain (feed)........................... 84.73/cwt
Cost of gain (all costs)................... 108.74/cwt
Fed steers...................................... 113.15/cwt
Break-even (August 2013)............. 118.30/cwt
Ontario
Yearling steers (850 lb.)............... $126.94/cwt
Corn silage....................................... 56.48/ton
Grain corn........................................... 6.81/bu.
Cost of gain (feed)......................... 102.41/cwt
Cost of gain (all costs)................... 127.54/cwt
Fed steers...................................... 114.44/cwt
Break-even (October 2013)............ 127.19/cwt
*Mid-month to mid-month prices
Breakevens
East: end wt 1,450, 183 days
West end wt 1,325 lb., 125 days
2013
Total Canadian federally inspected slaughter................ 673,254
Average steer carcass weight............................................ 888 lb.
Total U.S. slaughter.......................................................8,843,000
2012
737,859
884 lb.
9,092,000
Trade Summary
EXPORTS
2013
Fed cattle to U.S. (to Feb. 24)........................................ 108,584
Feeder cattle and calves to U.S. (to Feb. 24)................... 81,569
Dressed beef to U.S. (to Feb.)................................. 64.47 mil.lbs
Total dressed beef (to Feb.).................................... 83.60 mil.lbs
2012
107,606
49,299
90.92 mil.lbs
116.55 mil.lbs
IMPORTS 2013
Slaughter cattle from U.S. (to Feb.) .......................................... 0
*Dressed beef from U.S. (to Feb.).......................... 65.81 mil.lbs
*Dressed beef from Australia (to Feb.)...................... 6.38 mil.lbs
*Dressed beef from New Zealand (to Feb.).................. 5.85 mil.lbs
*Dressed beef from Uruguay (to Feb.)..................... 8.50 mil.lbs
2012
0
49.71 mil.lbs
5.20 mil.lbs
11.62 mil.lbs
6.03 mil.lbs
Canadian Grades (to April 13, 2013)
% of A
grades
AAA
AA
A
Prime
Total
EAST WEST
+59%
22.0
24.4
1.2
0.2
47.8
Total graded
161,451
553,569
Yield
–53% Total
13.4
59.7
2.5
35.5
0.0
1.3
0.9
1.7
16.8
Total A grade 98.2%
Total ungraded
% carcass basis
9,184
76.5%
56
85.1%
54-58%
24.3
8.6
0.1
0.6
33.6
Only federally inspected plants
market
talk
with Gerald Klassen
Looking forward on feeder cattle
W
estern Canadian feeder cattle prices have been
grinding lower so far in 2013 due to the high
cost of feed grains and sluggish fed-cattle
prices. Backgrounding operations and cowcalf producers are feeling the effects of sluggish beef demand
given the negative feeding margins which have plagued
finishing feedlots. I’ve received many inquiries regarding the
price outlook for feeder cattle given the recent article back
in the February issue. I was quite positive for the late summer and fall period and many producers are wondering if the
outlook has changed given the recent slump in the market.
Therefore, I thought this would be a good time to revisit the
feeder cattle market structure. I feel the bred cows/heifers or
cow-calf pairs are quite reasonably priced given the current
outlook and I’ve been consistently advising producers to confidently expand their herds this spring.
In the previous issue, I discussed the bearish price outlook for barley and corn. The USDA stocks report released
on March 28 showed total U.S. corn supplies at 5.4 billion
bushels, which was above analysts’ pre-report estimates. It
appears that the U.S. will have sufficient supplies until the
end of the crop year. Keep in mind domestic demand eases
in summer as there are few cattle on feed and the U.S. winter
wheat harvest will be in full swing in June. Secondly, U.S.
corn acres were estimated at 97.3 million, which is marginally higher than the planted acreage in 2012 of 97.2 million.
The Midwest drought is basically over with most regions
receiving adequate moisture late in winter and spring. At this
time, normal growing conditions are anticipated which will
result in average-type yields. U.S. corn production could easily finish at 13.6 billion bushels compared to last year’s crop
of 10.8 billion bushels. The recent data confirms my previous
article that corn stocks are sufficient until the end of the crop
year and the function of the corn market will be to encourage demand through larger exports in the 2013-14 crop
year. This is bullish for feeder cattle prices in the fall period.
I think we will see larger volume of U.S. corn and DDGS
imported into Western Canada which will set the price structure for barley as well. I wouldn’t be surprised to see barley
trade under $4 per bushel in September and October.
The other factor influencing the feeder cattle market is the
outlook for fed-cattle prices. Feedlots have endured losses in
U.S. quarterly beef production (million pounds)
Quarter
2011
2012
2013 Est.
1
6,411
6,283
6,285
2
6,559
6,475
6,365
3
6,737
6,584
6,365
4
6,492
6,571
6,095
Total
26,199
25,913
25,110
the range of $60 to $110 per head this winter and the price
outlook for the summer months is rather soft. Alberta packers have been buying slaughter cattle in the range of $111 to
$114 in early April and the market could move a bit lower
dipping to $109/cwt in the June time frame. This will limit
upside in the feeder market into the summer months. Looking into the third and fourth quarter, the deferred live-cattle
futures show signs of stronger prices.
Since the February issue, third-quarter beef production
has been revised upward by 120 million pounds while a
marginal increase has been factored into the fourth quarter.
In any case, I don’t feel it is significant enough to warrant a
change in the price outlook for feeders.
The U.S. economy continues to expand ever so slowly.
First-quarter GDP is expected to come in at 1.6 per cent
while the second quarter will only increase by 0.6 per cent.
This is a concern for beef demand during the summer months
because this quarter-over-quarter increase reflects how sensitive the economy will be to consumer spending. The slightest
fear of economic setback will cause the average American to
rein in excess expenditures which is not good news for beef
demand. However, the third and fourth quarters are expected
to show stronger GDP growth nearing the 2.0 per cent level
which is where we see the beef market moving to higher levels. This will be positive for the fed-cattle market, which will
spill over into the feeders.
Southern Alberta 500- to 600-lb. steers
Monthly average $$/cwt
In conclusion, the tight feed grain supply along with
stagnant fed-cattle prices will keep feeder values relatively
flat into late May. In June, feeder cattle prices will start to
strengthen as feedlots anticipate stronger fed-cattle prices for
the October through December time frame. Once new-crop
barley and corn come on the market, we’ll see a sharper jump
in the feeder cattle price as the margin structure improves for
finishing feedlots.
Gerald Klassen analyzes markets in Winnipeg and also maintains
an interest in the family feedlot in southern Alberta. He can be
reached at [email protected].
SALES AND EVENTS
EVENTS
June
4-6—Canadian Animal Health Institute
Annual Meeting, Bromont, Que.
6-9—Livestock Markets Association of Canada Convention and Auctioneer Competition, Deerfoot Inn and Casino, Calgary,
Alta. and Calgary Public Stockyards, Strathmore, Alta.
7-9—Lakeland College-Vermilion, 2013
Alumni Homecoming and Rose Ball —
100th Anniversary, Lakeland College,
Vermilion, Alta., 780-853-8628, www.lakelandc.ab.ca
9-11—Saskatchewan Stock Growers 100th
Convention and Annual General Meet-
STAMPEDE
By Jerry Palen
ing, Heritage Inn, Moose Jaw, Sask., www.
skstockgrowers.com/100th
10-12—Alberta Beef Producers Semi-Annual
Meetings, Four Points by Sheraton, Edmonton, Alta.
12-15—45th Annual BIF Symposium, Renaissance Hotel, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
17-18—ALMA’s Future Fare, Sheraton Hotel,
Red Deer, Alta.
19-21—Farm Progress Show, Evraz Place,
Regina, Sask.
20-21—UCVM Beef Cattle Conference 2013,
Coast Plaza Hotel, Calgary, Alta.
25—Western Beef Development Center
Annual Field Day, Termuende Research
Ranch, Lanigan, Sask.
18—YCSA National Classic, TBA
July
10-12—Canada’s Outdoor Farm Show, Canada’s Outdoor Park Woodstock, Ont.
5-14—Calgary Stampede, Calgary, Alta.
8-12—Summer Synergy, Olds Ag Society,
Olds, Alta., www.summersynergy.com
10—International Livestock Congress 2013,
Deerfoot Inn, Calgary, Alta.
11-13—25th Annual International Livestock
Auctioneer Championship, Calgary Stampede, Calgary Alta.
15-18—Beef Innovations 2013, Sheraton Cavalier, Calgary, Alta., www.simmentalinnovations.com
17—Canadian Simmental Association Annual
General Meeting, Sheraton Cavalier, Calgary, Alta.
LETTERS
“You all are on your own
until you finish shedding.”
AD INDEX
Ag Growth Industries
Alberta Beef Producers
Alberta Cattle Feeders
Brett Young Seeds
Canadian Farm Progess Show
Canadian Angus Assoc.
Canadian Charolais Assoc.
Canadian Gelbvieh Assoc.
Canadian Hereford Assoc.
Canadian Limousin Assoc.
Canadian Shorthorn Assoc.
Canadian Simmental Assoc.
Canadian Welsh Black Society
Case-IH
Delta Genomics Centre
Greener Pastures
International Livestock Congress
International Stock Foods
John Deere Ag Marketing Center
Kubota Canada
Lakeland Group/Northstar
Livestock Markets Assoc.
Merck Animal Health
New Holland
Olds Agricultural Society
Plain Jans
Red Brand Fence
Salers Assoc. of Canada
Saskatchewan Stock Growers
UCVM Beef Cattle Conference
Vermeer Corporation
Xplornet
Page
15
45
23
7
47
IFC
OBC
46
46
46
31
19, 46
46
8, 9
11
43
27
46
25
29
12 a-p
45
37, IBC
20, 21
12
46
43
46
16
49
17
41
Moles aren’t gophers
In the article “Smooth Haying With
Levellers”(C ANADIAN C ATTLEMEN ,
April, 2013) Lorne Klein explains that
moles and pocket gophers “are one
and the same creature.” This is incorrect! Moles and pocket gophers are
separate creatures with similar habits,
and they look quite different. However,
it would have been correct to say that
the damage farmers in Western Canada
attribute to moles, is always pocket
gopher damage. From what I’ve read,
we don’t have any moles in Saskatchewan or Alberta. Almost every farmer
in my area refers to pocket gophers as
“moles,” no matter how many times
you explain the difference between the
two. So I am happy that your article
brought the proper rodent to light,
but it was still mistaken or misquoted
information.
KATIE DENEIKO,
YOUNG, SASK.
Watch the C word
I would like to express my concern
about the “C” word that seems to be
creeping back into the cattle market
August
7-8—12th Annual Pasture Tour Days, Lakeview Hotel and Resorts, Hecla Island, Man.
(tentative date)
10—Gelbvieh Assoc. of Alberta and B.C. Field
Day, Royal Western Gelbvieh, Innisfail,
Alta.
17—Calgary Police Rodeo Assoc. 31st Annual
Rodeo, Airdrie Rodeo Grounds, Airdrie,
Alta.
19—Cattlewomen for the Cure Golf Tournament, Cotton Coulee Golf Course, Medicine Hat, Alta.
September
October
4-6—Olds Fall Classic, Olds Ag Society, Olds,
Alta., www.oldsagsociety.com
22-23—Livestock Gentec 4th Annual Conference, Coast Plaza Hotel, Edmonton, Alta.,
www.livestockgentec.com
 Event listings are a free service to industry.
 Sale listings are for our advertisers.
Your contact is Deborah Wilson
at 403-325-1695
or [email protected]
summary at the back of the magazine.
More than ever, I think we need to be
careful about the perception of beef
that the public has. If you could refrain
from using the term “Cull Cattle,”
especially in bold print in the market
summary section, I think that the result
would be a small yet positive move.
The beef industry seems to be a bit of a
“whipping boy” in the media, if people
get E. coli from contaminated veggies,
it seems to me that the story does not
get as much coverage nor last as long
as if ground beef was the source. To
people who may see cows and bulls
described as “culls,” it may appear
that there is no wonder that there is
a problem with beef. I run a cow-calf
operation, and when I send some of
my cows to town, I would believe that
the meat from these girls is safe, delicious and nutritious. Regardless of
the reason why they were brought to
town, the cows are a safe and wholesome source of delicious protein. Our
freezer is well stocked with ground
beef, usually from a veteran who has
served us for many years and makes
dynamite burgers, chili and lasagna. I
would ask you to consider using the
term Non-Fed more consistently often.
I enjoy reading your magazine but this
small item does cause me some concern. Keep up the good work!
ALEX KULCHAR,
VANDERHOOF, B.C.
ADD
SAFE-GUARD
ADD
POUNDS
TM
Safe-Guard TM (fenbendazole ) is a different class of dewormer than pour-ons and injectables. It works
fast to stop internal parasites and the hidden damage they cause. These parasites suppress feed
intake, reduce average daily gain, hurt nutrient absorption and immune function, reducing the health
and performance of your cattle.1,2
Use Safe-Guard as part of your parasite control program for more pounds of high quality beef
in the feedlot.3,4
Visit www.AddSafe-Guard.com for more information or contact your veterinarian.
1
Endoparasite control, L.R. Ballweber, Veterinary Clinics Food Animal, 2006, 22:451-461. 2Economic analysis of pharmaceutical technologies in modern beef production, J.D. Lawrence and M.A. Ibarburu,
Iowa State University, 2007. 3Pasture deworming and (or) subsequent feedlot deworming with fenbendazole. Effects of grazing performance, feedlot performance and carcass traits of yearling steers, R.
Smith, et al., The Bovine Practitioner, 2000, 34:104-114. 4A fenbendazole oral drench in addition to an ivermectin pour-on reduces parasite burden and improves feedlot and carcass performance of finishing
heifers compared with endectocides alone, C.D. Reinhardt, J.P. Hutcheson and W.T. Nichols, Journal of Animal Science, 2006, 84:2243-2250.
Safe-Guard is a trademark of Intervet International B.V. Used under license. Merck Animal Health (known
as MSD Animal Health outside the US and Canada), operating in Canada as Intervet Canada Corp., a
subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. MERCK and MSD are trademarks of
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA.
Copyright © 2012 Intervet International B.V., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse
Station, NJ, USA. All rights reserved.
TM
SafeGuard ad Canadian Cattlemen.indd 1
13-01-25 10:43
pgs_winter11_f:Layout 2
3/18/2011
3:45 PM
Page 63

canadian cattleman magazine

Transcription

Similar documents

Wisconsin TEAM BEEF - Wisconsin Beef Council

http://pantip.com/topic/33863645 3 July,2015 - tsubohachi

50 Cent

Located in Edmonton, Alberta, Northlands is one of Canada`s oldest

BACKGROUNDER - Canadian Beef Industry Conference

mini expansion fodder for the cattle components rules

student buffet - Botanas Restaurant

Infographic - BizSmart Singapore`s first cloud-based

Beef Bourguignon

Burly_Beef_-_bullseye quiz_7