Marchand was one of 16 candidates selected for the 2023-24 Canadian Cattle Young Leaders (CYL) program. The CYL program is a national program through the Canadian Cattle Association that matches people ages 18-35 with industry mentors and provides training opportunities. Marchand and the rest of her cohort completed their mentorships in August 2024.

Marchand is a fourth-generation rancher from Keremeos, B.C., who works with her family in Keremeos. She also ranches with her husband, their two kids, ages six and eight, and her husband’s family in Vernon, B.C. Working on the ranch with and alongside family is important for Marchand.

“The important part for me is I love the way I grew up, having my grandparents and family around. Giving my kids the opportunity to have the same kind of life is really special to have that continue on.”

But Marchand is busy off the ranch, too. For the past 13 years, she has been working as an ag lender with a major bank serving the North Okanagan area.

“Agriculture is my personal life, and my corporate life.”

• RELATED: So, you want to be a mentor?

In addition, she is involved with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. For the past four years, Marchand sat on the public affairs and education committee, promoting the beef industry throughout the province to the public and in the schools, and connecting the public with producers. She also serves as a director with the local North Okanagan Livestock Association.

“It’s a lot of fun to have all those different insights. A lot of them overlap and add value to each other, in different ways.”

Scaling up public trust

It took Marchand some time to get involved in the CYL program. She had close friends and family in the program early on. “Everyone had really great things to say about it.”

It just was one of those things she always thought would be good for her to do, but just kept putting off applying. Then she came close to aging out of the program, and she realized if she wanted to do it, she’d better apply.

Marchand’s nine-month mentorship culminated at the Canadian Beef Industry Conference in Saskatoon. She built a great relationship with her mentor, Sarah Wray. Wray is the owner of Story Brokers Media House and does a lot of work within the beef industry.

Although they hadn’t met in person, they worked together through phone calls and online meetings. Wray shared online resources and helped Marchand find different ways to look at things.

“She is definitely someone I learned a lot from. She’s been so supportive of everything I’ve done and open to sharing her insights, time and giving lots of encouragement throughout the process, as well.”

Wray is someone Marchand said she will continue to work with and bounce ideas off in the future. “I don’t really see it as ending.”

Each of the CYL participants has a different focus area they work on with their mentor. Marchand’s project was on building public trust.

“It grew from building public trust with the direct producer and consumer to the bigger picture of the beef industry — understanding some of the key players in the beef industry and the partners we work with and how it’s promoted on a larger scale instead of with an individual.”

She got to do something a little different than most people and became involved with a project with McDonald’s Canada. McDonald’s Canada has been a major supporter of the beef industry and also a platinum partner with the CYL program.

“What we wanted to do was highlight the partnership that they have and the value that they bring (to the CYL program),” Marchand said. She helped create a social media campaign that will be released soon. The campaign features short videos highlighting McDonald’s Canada’s support of the CYL program, and the value that the CYL participants get out of the program, as well as McDonald’s Canada’s corporate perspective on the program.

“It was fun to work on a real, live project.”

She found it very interesting to see what it’s like behind the scenes working with a larger company, including the back-and-forth, and the review processes before projects are released to the public. Although it wasn’t something she’d originally planned to do, it was a good learning experience.

Having that back-and-forth partnership helps the industry give back and the beef industry grow and head in the right direction. She feels that continuing to build public trust within the beef industry in every interaction — and it doesn’t have to be large social media campaign projects —helps producers represent the beef industry. She thinks this approach will help grow the beef industry.

She also shares information about her family’s ranch online through social media and does direct-to-consumer beef sales.

“I use that knowledge in a lot of different ways. Trying to think of it as not one thing is better than another, but sharing the story of what the whole industry is doing and the good things that are being done across the country.”

Immersed in the program

It’s only when you become fully immersed in the CYL program that you see what’s really going on, says Marchand. Participants see how many people they have in their network, which continues to grow, even after graduation. They become part of email lists that include job opportunities, travel opportunities and the chance to represent the beef industry in so many ways.

“You can learn from so many people.”

CYL gives participants a voice to connect with key people who make decisions and policy. “It’s very powerful. The network of people was bigger than what I expected it to be.”

Marchand was honoured to be the recipient of the second annual Reg Schellenberg Next Generation Legacy Award, which was awarded at the Canadian Beef Industry Conference in August. The CYL participants nominate a peer for the award based on criteria established by the Schellenberg family, and top nominees were interviewed. Marchand was awarded a travel bursary to attend the 2025 Saskatchewan Beef Industry Conference and a belt buckle donated by the Schellenberg family ranch, Perrin Ranching.

“Family is such a large component of what we do. Carrying on the legacy of what people have done before us… is such a huge part for me. And talking with the Schellenberg family, it’s a huge part of who they are. It’s an honour to be recognized and wear the buckle with pride.”

The value that a program like CYL brings to the beef industry and the people who started the program and continue to support it and sponsor it, is significant.

“When I think about who I met, who have gone through this program, there are some people who are making a difference, and seeing the ‘leap’ this program can give everybody is really neat.”

Although it took Marchand a long time to apply to the program, she’d like to nudge anyone thinking about applying.

“It opens up new directions for you and it’s customizable to whatever your focus is on. I encourage anyone sitting on the fence to take the time to apply for the program.”

Marchand would also like to thank her mentor, Sarah Wray, and her family for their support while she was participating in the program.

– Jill Burkhardt, her husband Kelly and their three children own and operate a mixed farm near Gwynne, Alta. Originally hailing from Montana, Burkhardt has a range management degree from Montana State University.

The post Mentorship program expands participant’s view on public trust appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

But is this treatment helpful or even necessary? It could be just scratching the surface, but Dr. Brenda Ralston and her team have been getting to the root of the problem to see what is actually causing itching in cattle.

Ralston is a Results Driven Agriculture Research (RDAR) research scientist at Lakeland College. Her research centres around products and processes that improve production with food production animals (mostly cattle, but also some sheep), and pharmaceutical research.

Three years ago, the Beef Cattle Research Council (BCRC) called for research proposals relating to itchy cattle and looking at what actually causes itchy cattle.

“It never has been pinpointed what the cause of itchy cattle is,” Ralston said.

Drs. Merle Olson and Denis Nagel with Alberta Veterinary Laboratories (AVL), Chinook Contract Research (Nick Allan, Dr. Joe Ross, Kendall Beaugrand, Ann Hammad and Crystal Schatz), and Lakeland College (Ralston and Andrea Hanson) successfully submitted a collaborative project to investigate what is causing itching in cattle. Their project is funded by BCRC and Alberta Beef Producers.

“We tried to come up with as many factors that could possibly cause itching in cattle,” Ralston said. “We wanted to go out into the field and find herds of itchy cattle to examine and find out what is going on.”

Researchers were able to connect with veterinarians who receive calls when producers think the de-lousing products are not working. These leads gave them seven herds across the three Prairie provinces to investigate

“We were enrolling herds that had more than 30 per cent of their herd that was itching.” Researchers set out to look at 10 itchy cattle and five non-itchy cattle in each herd.

“There were a number of different aspects we wanted to look at,” Ralston said.

At every farm, in addition to the tests that were performed, feed and water samples were taken. The water samples were evaluated for mineral content, as some tie-ups can occur between certain minerals.

External parasites and straw mites

The first aspect they wanted to look at was whether the cattle had external parasites, such as lice (both chewing and sucking) and mites. They came up with a system of where to look on the animals for these external parasites. They then checked the animal over for signs of lice, performed skin scrapings for mites, took photographs, performed counts of external parasites, and scored the animal. In the end, they did not find many signs of lice on the itchy cattle.

They also looked for straw mites in the cattle bedding.

“We wanted to see whether or not it could potentially be causing itching, especially in animals who were bedded on a straw pack,” Ralston said.

They collected samples of the straw used for bedding and used a Tullgren Funnel (an apparatus for collecting small organisms from soil or leaf litter) and checked the bedding to see if mites were present. They didn’t find any straw mites in their samples.

“At least we looked for them and could check that off the list,” she said.

Skin allergy tests

They also tested the cattle for allergies, in much the same way people are tested.

“We wanted to see if some of this itching was the result of some kind of allergic reaction,” Ralston said. There were five animals from each herd (15 total) that were selected for this test. Four exhibited hair loss and itching and one was normal (control).

For this part of the test, she involved a veterinary dermatologist — Dr. Frederic Sauve, with the University of Montreal. “He assisted us because typically there aren’t many dermatologists who deal with food production animals. He helped in selecting what different types of allergens we should be testing the cattle for.”

Researchers tested for a few allergens, including a seven-grass mix, alfalfa, mould mix, weed mix, grain dust mix, histamine (positive control), and saline (negative control). To perform this test, they shaved the animals, drew a pattern on the skin, and injected the allergens.

“Then we waited a period of time and the swelling was measured. We compared the swelling to the positive and negative control. We could tell if there was no swelling or if there was some.”

They also measured heat with an infrared camera. When there is a reaction, there is heat, and a value can be assigned to the reaction. Out of the 15 cattle that were tested, only one animal reacted to alfalfa.

“Dermal sensitivity on the majority of the animals did not appear to be an issue.”

Dry skin

The next test that they performed was to see if the animals simply had dry skin.

“We developed a protocol using a Corneometer, which is the tool used in human cosmetics to measure skin hydration,” Ralston said. “We were using the Corneometer to see whether or not dry skin, just like in people, was causing the itching.”

The itchy, bald patches were looked at in the cattle and compared to a non-itchy area on the same animal to see if the skin moisture was different. Ralston said they tested two distinct areas on the same animal because, they assumed, just like humans, no two animals have the same level of skin moisture. This was a bit of an unorthodox approach, and there is little to no research on cattle skin moisture, but they wanted to cover as much as they could while they had the producers’ cattle to work with.

“If there was something to dry skin causing itchiness, we wanted to pick that up.”

They compared skin moisture not only within a single animal but also between all itchy animals and all non-itchy animals. The issue became, which came first — the dry skin and then this itchiness or did they scratch the hair off and the skin became dry because of the lack of hair? That became a bit of a conundrum to figure out.

Ultimately, there wasn’t a significant difference in most herds. It was difficult to compare different herds, because different rations could affect the level of oils in the skin, such as if a producer fed canola meal. Instead, researchers compared itchy and non-itchy cattle within a herd.

“When I ran the stats on this study, there was only one herd that showed a significant difference between the itchy and non-itchy cattle in terms of skin hydration which was interesting,” she said.

While there are ways of increasing skin moisture in animals, it doesn’t appear to be a big factor in the study.

Nutritional deficiencies

Researchers also wanted to investigate nutritional deficiencies and see if they could cause itchiness in cattle. Initially, they pulled blood samples from the cattle and compared the itchy to the non-itchy cattle within the herd.

“We checked them for things like vitamin A, vitamin E, copper, manganese, cobalt, iron, magnesium, molybdenum, selenium and zinc. We ran all of these to have a look,” Ralston said.

The blood samples were also tested for mycotoxins, as certain ones in feeds can cause itchiness.

“We wanted to see if some of those might be in play with the itchy cattle,” she said. There wasn’t anything that showed up for mycotoxins, she said.

Once she got into the study, and had the go-ahead from a few producers, it was decided to have a skilled veterinarian — Dr. Denis Nagel — perform liver biopsies on some of the cattle. Liver biopsies more accurately assess the nutritional status of individual animals because most of the vitamins and minerals are stored in the liver. The same vitamin and mineral panels were run on the liver biopsies as the blood samples.

The results

The results came rolling in for Ralston and the team. Out of 101 cattle that were looked at, there were 21 that had lice, and 18 had less than 10 lice per square centimetre.

“The lice infestations were really quite light, and on only 20 per cent of the cattle. There was no correlation between itching and having lice either, and it didn’t seem linked to the hair loss.”

In the dermal hypersensitivity, there was no significant difference between itchy and non-itchy cattle.

The skin hydration tests showed that one herd had significant differences between the itchy and non-itchy cattle. “But over the seven herds, there wasn’t a significant difference,” Ralston said.

The blood serum results did not show any differences between the itchy and non-itchy cattle. However, in the animals that had liver biopsies, when they were tested for copper deficiency, a significantly lower level of copper was observed for the itchy cattle compared to the non-itchy cattle.

“We didn’t have a lot of liver biopsies (to work with), so the results are interesting. We think perhaps copper deficiency may be a contributing factor to itchy cattle,” Ralston said.

The team has since put in another application to a grant agency to do more research on supplemental vitamin and mineral products — including copper — and giving them to itchy cattle to see if it resolves the issue.

Ralston and the team are grateful to the veterinarians and the producers who helped them identify itchy cattle herds to study and allowed them to collect samples from their animals.

“Without their co-operation and the use of their animals, there would be no study. Alberta Beef Producers and BCRC were also an integral part of the study, through their funding and interest in the cause of itchy cattle, to help the livestock industry.”

Jill Burkhardt, her husband Kelly and their three children own and operate a mixed farm near Gwynne, Alta. Originally hailing from Montana, Burkhardt has a range management degree from Montana State University

The post Blaming parasites for itchy cattle only scratches surface, study finds appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

“It’s good, for its purpose,” says Trokhymchuk, chief scientific officer at Prairie Diagnostic Services in Saskatoon, Sask.

However, with cattle, most of our problems are not so simple. Point-of-care tests have been around for a long time but may not seem practical for a producer.

“I think it might be practical for a veterinarian to keep rapid test tools, like the one we use for anthrax, around. But for more complex problems like bovine respiratory disease, the multifactorial and complex nature of the causation prevents us from being able to do something simple.”

The problem

Large-scale feedlots are here to stay to feed a growing and hungry world population. Antibiotics are a necessary tool for animal health, welfare and disease management at the feedlot.

“The trouble with antibiotics is the more you use them, the sooner they stop working,” Trokhymchuk says. “When it stops working, it not only stops working for animals but for humans too.”

The feedlot industry is getting a lot of flak from the World Health Organization over antibiotic uses, especially when it comes to bovine respiratory disease (BRD) prevention and treatment.

“We really need to up our diagnostics, because there is a real risk of losing antibiotics as a valuable tool for both animals and humans if we don’t.”

When deciding to treat an animal for BRD, producers and practitioners are relying on their experience and a gut sense. “This is where we are lacking diagnostic support. They are making decisions based on what they see in front of them, what they have experienced themselves, and what is the current standard of care. But it’s still a guess.”

Working for a diagnostic lab himself, Trokhymchuk and his colleagues realize what is being offered currently is not adequate.

“If people send us a diagnostic request, it takes us a week to get a report back. It’s way too slow to make a treatment decision.” Diagnostics need to align within the decision-making window for the veterinarian and the producer.

Testing new solutions

Fortunately, technological progress is here to help. There is a new tool that was out of reach to animal agriculture even five years ago. DNA sequencing technology is rapidly advancing in utility and accessibility. And thanks to COVID, we now know that PCR-based tests are not enough to tackle a fast- moving infectious disease. Global health care quickly advanced to genotyping, which is only possible when the entire genetic code of the pathogen is read.

“The good news, yes, the devices to read the entire genetic code are here. The biggest challenge though is how do we quickly analyze the mountains of data they produce?”

Computers are advancing and getting more powerful, wireless connection and streaming are everywhere, and there is a way to make large data analysis happen fast using machine learning — one of the examples of artificial intelligence applications.

“As humans, our intellect is not big enough to comprehend so much data.”

When it comes to sequencing DNA code, looking at one pathogen might be comparable to a thousand-page book, but when it comes to sequencing the DNA code of an entire cow that would be about two thousand times bigger. In a cow, not only do you have to sequence the animal’s DNA, but also that of the many “bugs” inside that cow.

“The amount of genetic information inside just one animal is humongous, which is why we need the computing and artificial intelligence to digest it.”

In 2018, a BRD mortality sample arrived at Prairie Diagnostic Services at 11 a.m. At the lab, they were able to extract and prepare DNA from the sample, sequence and analyze it in just a few hours. By 5 p.m. they knew what kind of bacteria they were dealing with and what kind of drugs these bacteria might be resistant to.

“This kind of information is very valuable for making a precise treatment decision,” Trokhymchuk says. “Three days later we confirmed the same information with traditional bacterial culture and susceptibility testing. The method worked.”

Prairie Diagnostic Services asked for and received help from prominent academics, industry and government to build expertise and capacity for genomics — a steep learning curve and an exciting journey they have been on since that early pilot work.

The footprint and cost of equipment now are small enough for a vet clinic or to go in a truck. There is minimal training required. It comes down to taking the sample, following a few processing steps, having the data analysis and reading the information. Vets or producers need to collect enough DNA, from the right kind of sample, for the best chance of answering a clinical question.

For BRD, they have been using nasopharyngeal swabs — similar to a COVID swab. But for cattle, the stick is two feet long and it goes about two-thirds of the way into the nasal cavity. There is a special piece of cotton at the top that is treated so the bugs stick to it. Once it’s taken out it’s placed in a small test tube and processed to get the DNA from the bugs out.

“If dealing with mortality cases, bronchial swabs or lung tissue are good samples too.”

Trokhymchuk says a producer could learn to do the swab but would have to restrain the animal well. A good squeeze chute makes it much easier to properly take this kind of swab, he says.

“In a clinical case, we can help identify the bugs and what drugs they might be resistant to, but it is still up to the producer and their veterinarian to decide what drug makes the most economic and therapeutic sense to use for them. Of course, it helps to know that there are known pathogenic bacteria giving grief to your animals and what resistance genes you have lurking there — you probably don’t want to use the drugs that are less likely to work.”

Since the technology is becoming more available and affordable, folks like Trokhymchuk are ready to start tackling everyday livestock problems. However, price is still a factor. It costs about $1,000 to do a DNA sequencing run with the Oxford Nanopore Technologies equipment they use.

“It’s a lot of money, but 10 years ago, the same work would have cost a couple hundred thousand dollars,” he says. As time passes, and technology continues to evolve, metagenomics will cost even less. “Biotech folks are betting a test like this will cost under $30 in a few years.”

This fall, Trokhymchuk and a few colleagues will be driving around visiting feedlots in a retrofitted ambulance armed with this new technology. It is a proof-of-concept and a demonstration project in collaboration with Telus Agriculture and the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance. The traditional culture methods will be compared to the new DNA sequencing technology. They want to see how the new technology compares to the old in real life, as well as to learn more about making the new technology practical for daily use in the livestock industry.

“I honestly believe before I retire, we will be at a point similar to the Star Trek tricorder,” he says. “But I don’t subscribe to an idea of sitting and waiting until someone gives it to us. Better we figure it out — it is more fun and would cost less.”

– Jill Burkhardt, her husband Kelly and their three children own and operate a mixed farm near Gwynne, Alta. Originally hailing from Montana, Burkhardt has a range management degree from Montana State University.

The post Tech for cattle disease diagnostics edges into the Star Trek age appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

“It’s pretty ubiquitous throughout the province, but what changes is species,” says Mark Lyseng, government relations and policy lead with Alberta Beef Producers.

Different parts of the province have different issues. In the north and west parts of Alberta, large elk herds cause issues. East-central and southwest Alberta have deer issues.

Producers have been making sacrifices over the years to deal with the problem, Lyseng says. For example, a producer might stop swath grazing because wildlife defecated in the swaths, rendering them unsuitable for livestock. Or a producer may not bale graze because deer congregate around the bales.

“They have adapted to dealing with these problem situations,” Lyseng says.

In Alberta, there are two issues. One is elk management and the other is a shift in hunting. Elk is a tricky species to manage because they form large herds.

“If you’re the unlucky producer who gets a herd of 600 elk on your land, you get absolutely hammered. You can be the best manager, but you could lose an entire alfalfa field.”

Large herds of elk don’t stay in the same spot year-round. This makes it very hard to control them through hunting. Lyseng says he hears hunters complain producers with the large elk herds should have allowed more hunters on their land. But the elk might not have shown up until February or March, outside of hunting season. Even with longer seasons and more tags, unless the hunters find where the large herds are, the success rate is low and not effective for managing the population.

“That’s one of the biggest issues with elk.”

It doesn’t matter how the producer is feeding their animals, alfalfa fields alone can attract several elk or deer, reducing hay yields in the coming year. However, Lyseng says that is not what they hear about the most.

“The big one we do hear a lot about is swath grazing.” Swath grazing, as well as bale grazing, are eligible for the AFSC Wildlife Damage Compensation program, but the compensation ends on October 31 — right when most producers begin using their swath grazing or even before wildlife has taken a bite out of it.

“When we pushed back, they said if you have that high of population of wild ungulates you shouldn’t be doing those management practices,” says Lyseng of the government response.

“They are taking one efficient, low-cost, effective management practice out of beef producers’ toolbox.”

Alberta Beef Producers is pushing for a later date to claim wildlife damage to feed. “That October 31 date needs to be January 31.”

Compensation is available to producers for wildlife damage. It covers damage to stacked hay and greenfeed, silage and haylage in pits or tubes, according to the AFSC website. Producers don’t need to have AFSC coverage to submit a claim. They do need to pay an appraisal fee of $25 per inspection. The monies for funding are split between the federal and provincial governments. To receive a claim, a producer needs to consult with a Fish and Wildlife officer, who will then provide recommendations, before a claim is paid.

The maximum claim paid for haystacks and haylage in pits and tubes is $5,000. For subsequent claims, producers must have implemented Fish and Wildlife’s minimum recommendations. If recommendations are not met, on the second claim, the producer is only eligible for 50 per cent of the claim amount, and after no claim will be paid. For fencing off haystacks, the fencing materials are paid for but not the labour.

Unfortunately, the program monies don’t adequately cover the problem. Lyseng says, “They want to see these populations grow. So we’re only going to see the populations get worse.”

Alberta Beef Producers has heavily pushed the point that if the government wants to encourage these sizeable populations of elk and deer, then the government needs to pay for them.

“Or pay for the loss of use,” Lyseng says. “Ultimately you’re losing a use of your landscape.”

Calculating population size isn’t cut and dry — it’s heavily debated. Lyseng says it makes things tricky for beef producers, especially for producers who have pasture surrounded by cropland. These producers end up “providing feed” for the wild ungulates on their pasture land for being good land stewards.

“That’s the burden they have to bear and that seems unreasonable.”

Hunting has also become an issue because, in many areas of the province, cow elk and doe deer tags aren’t being filled. Hunting has shifted from subsistence to trophy hunting. The main mechanism the government has to control the wildlife population is hunting.

“Nobody wants to shoot the doe,” Lyseng says.

Producers are seeing pressure from wildlife during winter following a dry summer or in a cold, snowy winter. When feed is scarce, the deer and elk move in on cattle feed.

“This is at the time the livestock need the most feed. It’s also when your feed is worth the most. That’s a big issue for producers — they’re competing with the wildlife in a lot of cases. It’s a kick when you’re down.”

Some producers are coming up with creative ways to deal with wildlife on their land. One way they are finding is working with hunting and outfitter groups during hunting season. “This can help focus where the problem is. It’s both a deterrent and population management, which are both really useful.”

The working groups in Alberta are looking to their neighbours to the south, in the Western U.S., and seeing if strategies there will work here. Montana, Wyoming and South Dakota all have innovative programs regarding wildlife and livestock. Many of the strategies in the U.S. involve hunting. Some states will reward the landowner with a dollar value for each animal harvested from their land, Lyseng explains. Other states have access program incentives for both landowners and hunters.

While it sounds like livestock and wildlife are constantly competing for feed, the reality is many beef producers like to see wildlife and waterfowl in their pastures. Lyseng is also a beef producer in Camrose County.

“I know I want to see wildlife on my land. It’s great when I see deer. I post on Instagram when the fawns are playing in the pasture. Beef producers have that intimate relationship with biodiversity and stewardship.”

But when populations are allowed to grow unchecked, it becomes a problem. The burden falls on beef producers, and becomes “unreasonable,” says Lyseng. If society wants the wild ungulate populations to keep growing, organizations or groups will need to step up and pay their feed bill.

“I think that’s the big issue we’re running into. When is too much? That’s the big struggle right now. We shouldn’t lose the viability or sustainability of our operation for something that benefits all of society.”

The post Deer and elk take a bite out of winter feed appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

When it comes to preconditioning cattle, “every operation is different,” says Kathy Larson, research associate for the department of agricultural and resource economics at the University of Saskatchewan. Larson says there is opportunity for profit in preconditioning every year but it’s variable.

To look at the economics of preconditioning for the producer, Larson used data from a study of two groups of calves. One group was preconditioned for 45 days from one ranch and the other group was straight from auction. The results showed that while preconditioned calves had a lower bovine respiratory disease rate and lower morbidity than the auction market calves, the auction market calves gained 0.27 kg more a day than the preconditioned calves.

These results surprised Larson, but the study used calves from an auction market with an unknown history. Using ration data from the preconditioned calves along with other information such as vaccines given, yardage, interest, marketing costs and death loss, along with the price for the year the research was conducted (fall 2020), it was determined there was not enough revenue to cover the cost to precondition. However, when the research team looked at prices during other years, there would be enough revenue to generate a profit from preconditioning.

Because every farm or ranch is different, producers are encouraged to use the data they have to see if it has advantages for them. The Beef Cattle Research Council’s preconditioning calculator, developed by Canfax, allows producers to plug in their data to see if preconditioning holds economic opportunity for them. The calculator provides an estimate of net returns and projected break-even prices using three different preconditioning programs.

“I’m totally in support of doing what we can to prepare those calves for their next step to reduce their stressors through preconditioning,” Larson says.

READ MORE: Study delves deeper into preconditioning calves

The articles and research surrounding preconditioning have been around for a very long time, with many going back to the 1960s. But why aren’t more producers preconditioning? A lot of it has to do with a lack of third-party certification, Larson says.

“The verification that you have done, all the steps have different definitions to different people.”

There were programs in the past, managed by different entities. A program in Alberta was in the form of various sales that advertised preconditioned calves back in the 1980s to get more producers to precondition their calves. Some of those programs didn’t last long.

However, similar programs are now making a comeback. In 2021, Merck introduced its PrimeVAC 45 program in Canada. Merck lays out the protocols, such as vaccinating calves before weaning for respiratory and clostridial disease; weaning calves a minimum of 45 days before sale; completing any castration, dehorning or branding at least three weeks before transport; and getting calves used to eating from a bunk and drinking from a water bowl. Calves are then able to be sold through an online auction with that verification.

“The folks that are doing the preconditioning are the ones looking to take advantage of the premium sales,” she says.

The aim of these verification programs is getting producers to declare the calves are preconditioned. Larson says there has been a study that looked at two Alberta auction markets to see what attributes of the sale seemed to be associated with higher prices.

“Preconditioning had some influence (on price).”

However, when she had a student look at lots from online auction sales from August to December, there were very few lots that mentioned the term “preconditioning” — less than two per cent over five years, she says. Larson says she had feedback from others about the observations and was told that preconditioned calves show up at auction in January and February — outside of the time they were looking in.

A lot of times, though, cow-calf producers want a premium for preconditioning. “Producers want to be rewarded, and they’re not guaranteed a premium for the preconditioning.”

Often it comes down to who will be paying that premium. If it’s the feedlot who buys the calves covering the premium, the buyers may be skeptical preconditioning actually took place.

“That third-party certification would help,” she says.

Based out of Hudson Oaks, Texas, Superior Livestock, North America’s largest satellite auction, has its own verification requirements. They have a list on their website, and then a self-declaration that the producer signs prior to sale. There are measured premiums from their sales, Larson says.

“That’s part of what needs to be in place.” It goes beyond saying what happened, to actually signing off and following protocols. There is also more research in the works looking at following preconditioned cattle for longer periods to their finished weight.

Another reason why producers might not consider preconditioning is that 45 days is not enough time to make money on those animals.

“Most producers, if you’re going to retain (those calves), will do the background or long yearling.”

Also, cash flow on the farm might deter preconditioning. “You don’t want to run the risk of having (your calves) another 45 days and dealing with the headaches of their stress. There could be a number of reasons.

“There are some folks who precondition and really stand by it,” Larson says. These folks usually have a consistent buyer for their animals, as well.

But there are still feedlots that prefer “green calves.” She says we are at a point now where there is increasing pressure for producers to show they are doing their part for stewardship and responsible use of antibiotics.

“That could be some of the pressure that ends up having producers want to adopt some of the new marketing streams.”

– Jill Burkhardt, her husband Kelly and their three children own and operate a mixed farm near Gwynne, Alta. Originally hailing from Montana, Burkhardt has a range management degree from Montana State University.

The post The economics of preconditioning appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The Manitoba Grazing Exchange started in 2021 as a partnership between the Manitoba Forage and Grassland Association and Manitoba Organic Alliance. “It is a funded project by the Conservation Trust Fund of Manitoba,” says Duncan Morrison, executive director of the Manitoba Forage and Grassland Association.

Recent droughts in Manitoba had feed supplies running low for producers. After looking at an example of an online land swap platform in South Dakota that matches grain farmers with cover crops or perennials to graze with livestock producers, the Manitoba Grazing Exchange began.

“The ability for livestock producers to access extra food and fields for their cattle is something we are trying to bring the groups together,” says Morrison.

Producers are encouraged to go on to the online portal and sign up. Once signed up, producers can enter the name of their farm and pick if they have livestock or a land base. The season available can also be selected, as well as the location on a map. The producer also can write a small description of what is offered. For example, a livestock producer would put a description of the number and type of livestock available, if they are willing to travel, seasons they can graze and if they are willing to install fences, water systems or haul water.

Getting on to the virtual platform and learning it is one thing that needs to happen to make the land swap work.

“In situations where neighbours of crop and beef producers are working together, there is that synergy that they both understand the benefits to the soil and the benefit to their herd. That’s what we aspire to bring to the virtual platform,” Morrison says.

They are also looking for people who may not consider grazing their animals on other people’s land. By using examples where it has worked, they hope it will get more people to buy into the land-swap idea.

There have been some challenges involved with getting not only the virtual platform going, but with getting people to sign up.

“Having a pre-existing sense of individualism and not having experience of working with others might be a challenge and roadblock,” Morrison acknowledges. “I see the challenges and roadblocks disappearing as this begins to gain momentum, and people start sharing successes.”

The idea behind the program is a win-win for both producers, especially when it comes to soil health. One of the reasons that the Conservation Trust Fund became involved was the potential to benefit soil health, especially on those fields that might not have seen livestock in the past, Morrison says. According to the Manitoba Grazing Exchange website, “Fall or winter stubble grazing converts high-carbon crop residue, such as corn stalks, to low-carbon organic material. This improves the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio needed to improve soil health and manages crop residue to facilitate no-till seeding in the spring.” Other benefits include helping organic farmers reduce their spring and summer tillage, time and labour spent working fields, and reducing fuel use by grazing cover crops. And during times of drought, cover crops and stubble can provide alternative feed sources to livestock.

Integrating livestock into vegetable production

In Nova Scotia, soil health is also front and centre for getting livestock back on the landscape. Some research says the type of cropping system has effects on soil health and soil carbon levels. “We saw that fields that are horticulture fields, for vegetable production, tend to have less soil carbon compared to other types of cropping,” says Carolyn Marshall, environment and climate change manager with the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture.

The potential is there to hold more carbon. The idea is being facilitated as a Living Lab and the main focus is to sequester more carbon. “In our opinion, it’s easier to sequester carbon when the soil is depleted, than if the soil already has a lot of carbon,” Marshall says.

There are also other benefits including the ability to increase aggregate stability to help control erosion, provide nutrients through organic matter and boost infiltration, helping the crops become more resilient to extreme weather events.

The fields in the Living Lab grow cauliflower, onions and dry beans.

The producers were the ones who initiated the idea for a land swap, or getting livestock back on the land. “There were a few people who brought this (idea) forward, and it sounded like a good fit for Nova Scotia. It’s all producer-centred research.”

However, soil carbon is hard to measure within the project’s time periods. “So we wanted to figure out what is the best way to maximize our ability to do that.”

Knowing that pastureland has some of the highest levels of soil carbon, and that livestock play a key role in that, the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture went to the horticulture farmers and asked them how long they’d want to give up a field. Because horticulture is a high-value crop, they decided to seed the field to pasture and rotationally graze livestock on it for three years, before it goes back to horticulture production.

One of the pairs, a horticulture farmer and a livestock grazer, are neighbours and have rented land from each other before. “They were pre-existing, which really helped because it does involve a level of trust in the relationship that the land will be managed properly,” says Marshall.

Another pair of producers were not acquainted with each other, so the Living Lab brought them together.

“It’s a lot of communication about what’s going to happen, what are the expectations, and who’s responsible for what,” she says. If the trust isn’t there to begin with, working to build that with the two groups is paramount.

While focusing on soil health is the key component of the Living Lab, a new pest could challenge the idea of pasture and grazing livestock. “With the pasture and crops there is a risk for increasing wireworms, which is a big issue with vegetables.”

Since this brought on the potential for a new issue, they created a working group to monitor the pest. “If it gets to a point where we see the wireworms going up to where it’s going to be a problem, we’re prepared to pull the plug. We’re not going to keep the pasture there if it’s going to be detrimental to the vegetable producer.”

And that’s part of the Living Lab — it must adapt and be a realistic choice for the producer.

The fields for the Living Lab will be seeded in the spring. While returning the pastures to vegetable production will require them to be tilled, which in turn will result in some loss of soil carbon, Marshall is hopeful that some of the carbon will stabilize, staying in the soil for the longer term.

The Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture is hoping to develop a template for producers to initiate a relationship for working together in a crop-livestock grazing relationship. “What kind of things do you need to decide with your partner — who’s responsible for what, are there any costs going back and forth, and so on. We want it to go smoothly for both partners.”

They are also hoping to create a network for the two groups so producers can find each other, if they don’t have interested neighbours nearby.

“It’s been really interesting to see the support from the producers. There are lots of moving parts, but they are on board, which is really encouraging,” says Marshall.

Jill Burkhardt, her husband Kelly and their three children own and operate a mixed farm near Gwynne, Alta. Originally hailing from Montana, Burkhardt has a range management degree from Montana State University.

The post Farmer seeking grazier: Matching crop and livestock producers to graze cropland appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

“In the past, a lot of the water courses were suffering bank or shoreline damage because they weren’t being protected,” says Greg Paranich, agriculture field specialist with the Grey Wooded Forage Association, based in west-central Alberta. This also leads to a lot of the vegetation being overgrazed by livestock. So instead, managers fenced these areas off to livestock to alleviate the problem.

However, some of the fences weren’t defining the riparian area — they were defining corridors. “We weren’t really addressing the riparian area,” Paranich says.

The true riparian area extends from the water’s edge to the upland vegetation. It is generally thought of as the area where moisture-loving vegetation occurs along the edge of a natural water body.

Producers began contacting Paranich and saying that there was a lot of dead growth and invasive species coming into these exclusion areas, as well as an increased fire risk. The question was how to improve the riparian area with livestock, without damaging the things we want to protect. So the Grey Wooded Forage Association partnered with Cows and Fish and ALUS to create riparian field schools.

“We had all the people around the same table who were interested in improving grazing management and protecting the environment. But how do we do a better job on these riparian areas without removing grazing?”

They wanted to educate producers on why riparian areas are important, how to identify them and how can we change what we have been doing.

“Here are your basic grazing principles, and this why it makes sense to graze riparian areas, but this is why we use these principles to graze (riparian areas) in a responsible manner,” Paranich says. With this philosophy in mind, making this happen on a day-to-day basis meant getting all the key components in place to make it practical for producers.

First, they identify the areas that had been protected from grazing but had a lot of acres in them. Those areas were now referred to as riparian pastures. “This is a pasture that we manage different from anything else,” Paranich says.

But fencing was still needed to make sure the area was protected, while also allowing livestock into areas where it was okay for them to be. This is where portable electric fencing technology allowed livestock to graze the areas that were previously unavailable to them. At the field schools, a company called Range Ward delivers information on electric fencing essentials and demonstrates a portable electric fencing trailer called the Razer Grazer.

At the field school, grazing basics are discussed, as well as fencing design. Paranich says that fencing design is essential, and depends on the recovery of the riparian zone.

“If it was an emerging recovery of a riparian area, we might set the portable fence a little further out from the bank and let the areas we want to recover without grazing for a year or two, and then lightly graze it.” In wetter years, the fence might be farther from the bank, while in drier years, the fence might be closer to the bank. The portable fence allows this flexibility.

Now livestock are allowed to graze the riparian pastures but grazing management components, such as timing, duration and stock density, need to be figured out. When looking at the timing of grazing for these riparian pastures, Paranich says a good rule of thumb is to graze in late July to early August. Generally, this is a time in summer when it is hot and dry, so the cattle’s impact is minimized. Biologically, the plants have been allowed to grow, bloom, go to seed and harden off, making them less vulnerable to grazing damage. Also, birds have finished nesting.

The number of livestock (or density) to graze comes down to the assessment of the riparian area. “That’s part of the learning curve,” Paranich says. “We want to minimize that impact (from the cattle) versus a regular pasture because we’re only going in once a year.”

A large determination of how many animals to graze depends on how much impact the producer wants the cattle to make in that area. Enough cattle are needed to graze down the area down a bit — but not too much.

Grazing too heavily can have negative consequences “because we want regrowth to occur,” says Paranich. But grazing is needed to stimulate those plants and get them working again.

“They (the plants) need to get back on the payroll and start working, building roots, soil carbon and soil microbes,” Paranich says. “We have to keep that machine running.”

The duration of livestock in riparian pastures has many facets to consider. Pasture size and the number of livestock grazing play a large role. If pasture sizes are changing every year, then the timing in each pasture will have to be evaluated yearly.

“It’s not just, ‘We’re going to go in there for three days.’ It all depends on the circumstances,” Paranich says. Some pastures may be grazed for only a day while others may be grazed longer.

“That’s what we’ve looked at,” Paranich says. “Let’s redefine how we manage riparian areas by looking at them as riparian grazing areas that need a different management.” Participating producers have been able to see how these areas respond to grazing in the few short years they have been looking at riparian areas this way.

On one participant’s pasture, they made larger pastures into smaller cells with separate riparian pastures. As they grazed each cell, they skipped grazing the riparian area on the first pass to give the area some time to recover, as it had been heavily grazed in the past.

“What we saw that first year, I didn’t expect to see until maybe three years,” Paranich says. “The response in that situation was where we saw cattails starting to poke up.”

The successes that Paranich has seen with producers have him excited for the future.

“We have seen what we can do when we protect a riparian area. But also we can use that riparian area in the overall grazing plan. It gives us another option.”

The post Grazing riparian areas judiciously appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Bale grazing has become more popular in recent years. Before an entire feeding system is switched over to bale grazing, there must be an awareness of net gains versus net losses.

A Lakeland Applied Ag Research study showed about 20 per cent of the feed wasn’t consumed by the animals, says Barry Yaremcio, ruminant nutritionist. “It’s a big loss, but the argument on the other side is it’s not really wasted.”

The theory behind bale grazing is that “waste” from the bale is nutrients going back into the soil. Bale “waste” also provides mulch for the pasture. Selecting the optimum site for bale grazing is also key. Poor-performing pastures or pastures with poor soils are going to benefit most.

“If you are bale grazing on pastures, that thatch will reduce temperatures, and help conserve moisture,” Yaremcio says. Although there is money lost from forage not being consumed, the bonus is the improvement to the land — an increase in water retention, reduction in soil temperature and increase in soil nitrogen retention.

“What you’re using the bale grazing for is to replenish the nutrients available for next year’s plants,” Yaremcio says.

Feeding round bales out of bale feeders (ring-style, cone-style or multi-bale feeders) is also popular. One positive of these feeder styles, especially for smaller herds or groups, is you don’t need to start a tractor daily to feed — the feeder is filled on demand.

But not all feeders are created equal. With bale feeders the amount of feed waste involved “is anywhere from 3.5 to 14.6 per cent, depending on the style of feeder you have,” Yaremcio says. The ring-style feeders had the most wasted due to their design. The bale fits snugly within the ring, so when the cow grabs a bite of hay with her mouth, she grabs, bites and pulls back. When she pulls back, some hay drops on the ground and is lost.

To minimize waste, a cone-style bale feeder is a better option. Yaremcio explained this type of feeder is about 12 inches wider than the outside of the bale, with some rungs that go down at a slant, holding the bale in about a foot inside the feeder.

“They have to turn their head to get their head into the feeder, straighten out and eat. If they move to get out, the feed drops inside the feeder and is usable.” Having that space where the cow can put her head in and eat helps with feed loss. “Anything to prevent the cows from backing out while eating saves a lot of feed.

“One thing you will find different when you feed on the ground versus a bale feeder is the amount of material that is lost.” The waste of unrolling hay on the ground adds up to about 12.3 per cent, according to Yaremcio. “If there is feed on the ground, cows cannot pick up a particle size less than three-quarters of an inch.” Even though it will seem cows can “vacuum” grain off the ground, when it comes to hay, they don’t. The only issue with the cows not eating the smaller, fine particle parts of hay, is it’s usually the high-quality stuff — flowers, leaves and fine stems — that gets left behind.

“It’s not just the percentage of physical waste that occurs, it’s the greater loss of quality,” Yaremcio says. “If you look at what is being lost, it’s the ‘gravy,’ the really good stuff.”

The benefit of unrolling bales comes in the cost of delivering feed — not much equipment is needed, nor is much fuel used.

If you’re using a bale processor (one that rotates and shreds the bales), you can mitigate waste. If you feed on the ground, you will see around 19.2 per cent waste. By using the same delivery method, but grinding the bales into troughs or bunk feeders, you’ll have zero waste.

“Any feed that gets into the bunk gets cleaned up,” Yaremcio says. The cows can access all the feed inside the bunk, whether it has an open bottom and is on stubble or if the bunk has a floor in it.

“Depending on the operator you might have two to three per cent loss by having feed hit the side of the feeder and falling on the outside.” It is a good idea, Yaremcio says, to use both the bale processor and the trough or bunk feeder. If you do the math, at eight cents a pound for hay, it works out to $64 a cow for the value of feed that’s wasted based on a 175-day feeding period. Not only are you eliminating waste, feeding into a bunk, but you are also maintaining forage quality.

“The one thing I do like about using a portable bunk feeder in the pasture for the bale processor is it can feed in one area for five days to a week, then you can pull it to another part of the field, and feed there. You are distributing the manure,” Yaremcio says. You can move the bunks and target areas of poor soil, such as hilltops, sandy or clay areas. Adding manure to these poor soils helps increase soil fertility. Distributing manure across fields eliminates manure-hauling expenses. It doesn’t take many bunks either. A bunk that is five feet wide by 28 feet long can hold a 1,400-pound bale and feed 40 cows.

Waste has a cost, and once you calculate that cost, you can better evaluate decisions around feeding.

Jill Burkhardt, her husband Kelly and their three children own and operate a mixed farm near Gwynne, Alta. Originally hailing from Montana, Burkhardt has a range management degree from Montana State University.

The post Evaluating options for feeding bales appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

With hay prices skyrocketing over the past year or so, weathering or loss in the stack are thoughts on more people’s minds than in years past.

While there might not be an actual “right” way to store your hay, there are some guidelines. Each way does have its pros or cons. But each producer also has their own unique hay storage area. Think about the situations you face in your own hay yard when reading these recommendations.

“When you make your decision about placing your feed, are you thinking about the pros and cons? It can’t be perfect, but what can we do to minimize losses?” asks Janice Bruynooghe, interim extension and communications director with the Beef Cattle Research Council.

[RELATED] Rebuilding or replacing forage stands

Mushroom stacks are made by placing one bale on end on the ground and a second bale, twine-side down, on top of it. Rows are then formed, placing more bales in less space. Another pro, Bruynooghe says, is the second layer is off the ground.

But mushroom stacking has a major downfall. “That bale that is on the ground has lots of ground contact. It is also the end of the bale (that is touching the ground), so there’s a better chance that the bale can wick up moisture.”

The more moisture the bale wicks, the more spoilage within that bale. The top bale also sheds moisture onto the bottom bale, increasing spoilage.

Overall, the benefits of mushroom stacking — getting the one bale off the ground — are outweighed by having the bale on the ground, which can collect moisture and increase spoilage.

Single-row storage bales are stored end-to-end in rows. It is the recommended way to store bales outdoors, not under cover or tarps. “By going in the single long rows, you’re exposing the bales to as much airflow as possible.”

Bruynooghe recommends orienting rows north to south, with space between each row of bales, especially if you’re carrying them over.

[RELATED] Turning weeds into feed

If you orient your bales east to west, the north-facing side will deteriorate more. “But if we spin them and place them north to south, that’s giving the bales the best sunlight, airflow and drying opportunities, decreasing the chance for weathering losses,” Bruynooghe says. It’s a recommendation not just for the Prairies, but throughout North America.

Even though every bale is on the ground, it’s about increasing airflow and the ability to dry the bales out quickly if they do get wet. Having the bales sit in a single row allows the moisture to shed down the wrapped (or twined) side while placing them end-to-end also protects the end, decreasing the chance of rain or moisture getting in between. Placing the rows in an area with good drainage protects from excess moisture, wicking and spoilage. Mowing the baleyard before stacking will help eliminate excessive moisture from dead grass trapping snow.

Pyramid stacks are made by placing a row of three bales (wrapped or twine side) on the ground, then two rows of bales on top of those rows, followed by another row of bales on top, creating a pyramid three bales high.

The pro for pyramid stacking is several bales can be stacked in a small area. As well, there are two layers of bales off the ground. The negative is that you can get rain shedding over two layers onto the bottom layer.

“There might be some benefits to that top layer, but the other two layers are going to pay the price. Plus, the ground around the bottom of the stack is going to get wetter from rain-shed, and stay wetter, longer.”

However, you can tarp a pyramid stack. “If you follow the science, covering bales in the perfect world is the best option. Your storage loss can be reduced by up to half with good covering,” Bruynooghe says.

But tarping bales comes with its own set of cons. It is labour intensive and expensive to cover a large amount of feed. While it might not be practical to tarp all the hay, tarping a small amount of high-quality feed or feed to carry over into the following year would reduce weathering losses.

Bale size. A six-foot round bale will have less weathering loss than a five-foot round bale — five per cent less in fact — according to the BCRC website.

“The bigger the bale, the less percentage of the total bale volume is on those outer layers. So you get less loss on a bigger bale where there is more volume on the inside that is protected.”

Bale density also affects infiltration. The denser a bale is packed, the less infiltration.

When it comes to storing forage crops, not all storage methods are created equal. But each producer can find what works for them.

“If your storage locations are limited, put your best feed where you have the best option to store it appropriately. Think about storage in more of nutritional content of that bale. Store it accordingly and use it accordingly,” says Bruynooghe.

For more detailed information about hay storage, visit beefresearch.ca.

The post How do you store your hay? appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

What exactly is rotational grazing? According to the United States Natural Resource Conservation Service (USNRCS), “Only one portion of the pasture is grazed at a time while the remainder of the pasture ‘rests.’” See Pastures for Profit: A Guide to Rotational Grazing for more from the USNRCS.

To maximize the effects of rotational grazing, animals are moved through the paddocks according to the plants’ growth stages. Credit for this grazing concept goes back to a Society of Range Management meeting in 1950 where Arthur Sampson presented the concept.

Once you’re ready to start a rotational grazing system, it’s time to get a plan!

First, I suggest looking at a Google map or any other aerial photograph you might have of the specific pasture you’re looking at switching over. Take note of existing fencing. If the pasture is just perimeter fenced, how many paddocks are you thinking? Keep in mind more paddocks means more pasture moves. Where are your water sources? Is there any other infrastructure — corrals or building sites — that you need to keep in mind?

Second, you need to figure out how many animals you will be grazing. If you are grazing a 1,400-pound cow with a calf at side the AU will be 1.29. Bulls are also figured into the AU. A 2,000-pound bull will have an AU of 2.0 (numbers used from Beef Cattle Research Council).

Once you have the total AU for the herd you want to rotational graze, you can now estimate the carrying capacity for your pasture. These can either be figured by month, or for the grazing season. If you don’t know the carrying capacity for the species on your pastures, Beef Cattle Research Council has a calculator at beefresearch.ca.

Next, determine the number of paddocks in a pasture. The number of paddocks in a rotation can range from two all the way up to 40 or more!

There is no “best” number. Even if you take a pasture, divide it in half and have two paddocks — you’re still resting half the pasture. Existing fences, topography and water sources often play a role in where paddocks are.

The USNRCS has a simple equation for determining the number of paddocks needed. They take the rest period required for the plants in the pasture and divide it by the grazing period you would like to use in each pasture. Then add the number of animal groups that will graze in those paddocks. On our farm, we have been practicing rotational grazing for over 20 years. Our average rest period is 45 days and we move paddocks approximately every seven days (this number is very dependent on the growing season). So for us (45/7) + 1 = 7.42. We have seven paddocks in our pasture.

When you’re designing the paddocks on the map for your rotational grazing, keep in mind where your current water sources are or where potential water sources can be. If you’re wanting to keep inputs low, try to work with existing water sources. One way of servicing multiple paddocks with one water source is by designing a laneway or a water pen. This way, multiple paddocks can use one source. The only downfall of this is these areas often become “sacrifice areas” or areas of higher use and don’t get the rest the paddocks do.

Once you have mapped (and ground-truthed) where you want your paddocks to go, next is planning fencing. There are many options for fencing these days from using permanent to temporary; running four-strand barbed-wire fences or using electric poly-wire. The choice is entirely up to you. Permanent fences have more appeal for people who have static cattle numbers and have a bit of experience with rotational grazing. One thing to keep in mind when planning fencing is how many paddocks you’re planning on moving through. If you start with a few, large paddocks, there’s always room to make them smaller and have more frequent moves. If this is an option for you, you might want to make the larger paddocks with more permanent fencing, then add temporary fencing as time goes on. Temporary fencing allows you to alter paddocks and make changes as needed. The USNRCS says, “Don’t let your current fencing arrangement limit you. Fence in a way that makes the best use of your land.”

The paddocks are fenced and the cattle are turned out — now what? From when to make your next move, or seeing if a paddock has had enough rest, monitoring is a constant. While you can use general guidelines, having an eye on the ground is best. And since everyone has a phone in their pocket, it’s easy to take dated photos and compare not only from month to month, but year to year. Some tips on what to monitor include: grazing and rest periods, which pasture you grazed first and last, areas where animals congregate, and stubble height and regrowth rate.

There are many recommendations when it comes to rotational grazing. However, I find the best thing about it is you can make it to fit you and your farm! If you know of another producer who already rotational grazes, ask them for tips and advice. Even though I’ve been practicing rotational grazing for almost 20 years, I learn something new about our pastures every year. Hopefully, with this advice, you will be able to rotational graze and have productive pastures for years to come.

The post How to start rotational grazing appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.