CCT130513

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: cdnangus@cdnangus.ca

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

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 Email: deb.wilson@fbcpublishing.com 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 Email: ads@fbcpublishing.com

Grazing cattle biggest methane emitter. .................... 22

Publisher: Lynda Tityk Email: lynda.tityk@fbcpublishing.com

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 Email: shawna@fbcpublishing.com Circulation Manager: Heather Anderson Email: heather@fbcpublishing.com President: Bob Willcox Glacier Media Agricultural Information Group Email: bwillcox@glaciermedia.ca 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: subscription@fbcpublishing.com U.S. subscribers call 1-204-944-5766 Member

LIVESTOCK PUBLICATIONS COUNCIL

Our cover photo by Debbie Furber.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca 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.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

Associate Publisher/Editorial Director: John Morriss Email: john.morriss@fbcpublishing.com

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. www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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

6 Cattlemen / May 2013

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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.

Š2013 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

10 Cattlemen / May 2013

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 Continued on page 12 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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.

Continued from page 10

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

12 Cattlemen / May 2013

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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 skenyon@greenerpasturesranching.com.

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.

14 Cattlemen / May 2013

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. www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 Continued on page 16

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 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013 15

Continued from page 15

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 edward.bork@ualberta.ca.

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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 18 Cattlemen / May 2013

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 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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. Š2013 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

Continued from page 18

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. www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 Cattlemen / May 2013 21

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.

22 Cattlemen / May 2013

“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 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

N u t r i t i o n

by John McKinnon John.mckinnon@usask.ca

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

24 Cattlemen / May 2013

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. www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 26 Cattlemen / May 2013

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 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 (arnold.mattson@agr.gc.ca).

C — Duane McCartney Duane McCartney is a retired forage beef systems research scientist from Lacombe, Alta.

CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013 27

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

28 CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013

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 (gren@fbcpublishing.com) or WCABP (info@wcabp.com).

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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

Cattlemen / may 2013 31

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)

32 CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013

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.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 Continued on page 34

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

CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013 33

BEEF WATCH Continued from page 33

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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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.

34 Cattlemen / may 2013

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 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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.

Continued on page 36 CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013 35

BEEF WATCH

Beef Watch is prepared by the staff of Canfax and Canfax Research Services, divisions of the Canadian Cattlemenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Association

Continued from page 35

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 Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s top agriculture publications with just a single click.

Network 36 Cattlemen / may 2013

SEARCH www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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

38 Cattlemen / May 2013

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. www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 doncampbell@sasktel.net.

CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013 39

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-

40 Cattlemen / may 2013

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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

42 CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013

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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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.

Continued on page 44

*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 skenyon@greenerpasturesranching.com 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 CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013 43

News Roundup Continued from page 43

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

44 Cattlemen / May 2013

 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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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. www.AlbertAbeef.org/About/ 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.

AnnuAl-generAl-meeting/ for more informAtion or to register go to

www.AlbertAbeef.org/About/ AnnuAl-generAl-meeting/

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. www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013 45

News Roundup Continued from page 45

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 info@isfcanada.ca www.isfcanada.ca

46 Cattlemen / May 2013 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 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013 47

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!

48 Cattlemen / May 2013

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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.

â&#x2014;&#x2020; 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 Continued on page 50

Cattlemen / May 2013 49

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

50 CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013

Continued from page 49

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 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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➤ Cattlemen / may 2013 51

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

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

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

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

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

52 Cattlemen / may 2013

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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

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 gklassen7@hotmail.co.

Cattlemen / may 2013 53

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 Continued from page 6

“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

54 CATTLEMEN / MAY 2013

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 deb.wilson@fbcpublishing.com

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. www.canadiancattlemen.ca

ADD SAFE-GUARD ADD POUNDS

TM

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

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

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

TM

SafeGuard ad Canadian Cattlemen.indd 1

13-01-25 10:43

pgs_winter11_f:Layout 2

3/18/2011

3:45 PM

Page 63