The Canadian Cattle Association and Beef Cattle Research Council say cuts to federal research centres and programs will have long-term debilitating consequences for the beef industry.

The two organizations issued a statement Feb. 3, raising concerns about reductions at facilities in Nappan, N.S., Lacombe, Alta., and Quebec City, and offering suggestions on how some of the research could be preserved.

“We recognize the fiscal pressures facing the federal government; however, the cuts will have far-reaching impacts for cattle producers, the beef industry, consumers and Canada’s efforts to grow the economy and diversify export markets,” they said.

Producers invested heavily in research

In the past 10 years, beef producers have increased their research contributions by more than 600 per cent as an investment in future economic growth and competitiveness, the statement said. Public-good research is essential where market incentives are limited or independent expertise is required.

CCA president Tyler Fulton said research capacity is not easily rebuilt.

“Canada’s beef producers rely on a stable, high-performing public research network to deliver the tools, evidence and innovations that keep farms resilient, food safe and our sector competitive,” he said.

“When research capacity is lost, it isn’t quickly rebuilt. Cattle producers and the public pay the price for years and even decades.”

Forage breeding at the centre of the losses

The closures at Nappan, Quebec City and Lacombe all affect forage breeding — the foundation of the beef industry.

Work at Lacombe led to extended grazing practices that helped producers cut winter feeding costs and survive the BSE crisis, the statement said. Researcher Vern Baron did much of this work and more recently began collaborating with colleagues in Quebec to develop higher-yielding, winter-hardy alfalfa varieties. At Nappan, grazing management research and new forage varieties have been adopted across the country.

Researchers at Lacombe also developed the beef instrument grading technology currently used worldwide.

Closing the facility means Canada has lost its only meat science program and will lack the scientific expertise needed to address grade equivalency questions in foreign export markets. Lacombe also housed a food safety team.

Industry calls for program transfers

CCA and BCRC said if the cuts proceed as planned, they want critical capacity and programs transferred. Their proposals include moving the national carcass quality and grading research program to the University of Guelph, where there is a federally inspected research abattoir.

They said they understand the lead Lacombe food safety researcher may be transferred to Lethbridge and want that confirmed.

They want forage breeding at Nappan and Quebec City maintained or transferred.

And, they want industry investments refunded if Agriculture Canada cancels projects midway through their terms.

CCIA outlines traceability transition

The Canadian Cattle Identification Agency may not be proposing regulatory changes for traceability, but it’s the organization that delivers the program.

“Just a reminder, CCIA, we are the responsible administrator,” general manager Ashley Scott said during the Saskatchewan Beef Industry Conference in January. “CFIA, they are the regulator and the enforcer.”

A responsible administrator is defined as an organization responsible for delivering a traceability program defined by federal regulations. Those regulations are set by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which safeguards food safety and sets the objectives of the National Livestock Identification and Traceability program.

“The Livestock Identification Traceability program provides accurate and up-to-date livestock identity, movement and location information to mitigate the impact of disease outbreaks and food safety concerns and natural disasters,” Scott said.

Proposed changes face industry opposition

The traceability regulatory changes introduced in Canada Gazette I were working toward Canada Gazette II, which includes proposed changes that parts of the cattle industry oppose.

The proposed changes include identification and registration of premises where livestock are kept or collected, identification of livestock, and domestic movement reporting.

The changes align with the Cattle Implementation Plan developed by the Canadian beef industry in 2016.

What producers need to do

The biggest adjustments for producers include obtaining or maintaining a current premises identification number (PID) from a provincial government, including a PID when purchasing CCIA-approved tags, reporting information related to cattle identification and movement, and reporting move-ins within seven days.

“The proposed regulations do contain a permission that if a producer does not have a PID … that they can report all the necessary PID-associated information, such as the legal land description, contact info, etc., when movements of herd (occur) or tags are purchased,” Scott said.

In Saskatchewan, PIDs have been required by the provincial government since 2017, and origin and destination PIDs must be included on livestock manifests as of 2025.

Reporting requirements vary by operation

The CCIA and the Saskatchewan Cattle Association developed a guide to the incoming regulations, shared during the SCA’s recent annual general meeting.

Reporting requirements vary for producers, transporters, feedlots and auction marts, but most of the burden falls on producers.

Producers must report move-ins to their sites, community pastures, vet clinics, cattle shows and exhibitions, though the specifics vary slightly by type.

For yard move-ins, producers would report the PID of the departure and arrival sites, date and time of departure and arrival, individual tag numbers of arriving cattle and the licence plate number — including province, territory or state — of the delivering truck.

Community pasture requirements are the same, except producers report head count rather than individual tag numbers. Reports of both departure and return are required.

Veterinary clinics and cattle shows require a few additional steps, including date and time of departure, arrival, return and departure from the clinic or show.

Auction marts must report the move-in, but the transporter or producer provides departure PID, date and time of departure and licence plate information. Auction marts do not need to report individual tag numbers, but feedlots do.

Scott did not answer specific questions from the floor and advised producers to direct questions to the SCA for forwarding to the CFIA, or to contact the agency directly by email.

Getting ready for compliance

To prepare, Scott recommends producers take several proactive steps: obtain a PID through the provincial government, update contact information for their PID, familiarize themselves with the Canadian Livestock Tracking System (CLTS) for online reporting, attend information sessions hosted by the CCIA or producer organizations, and begin recording movement events in the CLTS.

“In the CLTS Resource Centre, you will find those step-by-step guides and instructions that will make using the CLTS easier,” Scott said.

The CLTS is the preferred reporting method. Producers can use the web portal or mobile app, upload an Excel file or use web services — the best option for software providers and high-volume reporters. The system also works offline, allowing producers to enter information and upload it when they have connectivity.

Paper records are still accepted but not preferred.

“It wouldn’t be our preference if everybody submitted a paper record,” Scott said. “We still take them, and when we receive them, we will reach out to that client and we’ll confirm the information. We do enter it in the system on their behalf.”

System updates ahead of new rules

The CCIA has updated the CLTS to ease reporting and ensure compliance. New fields include arrival date and time and a movement reporting module — both optional now but mandatory when the CFIA regulations take effect.

“The movement record is an alternative reporting option, primarily when the departure site chooses to initiate the process,” Scott said. “The pre-existing movement event in the CLTS is a recommended method and allows the destination site to report movements.”

Conference attendees raised concerns that producers don’t know enough about the CLTS and aren’t using it. Scott said education efforts would expand, noting the focus in 2025 was on dealers while 2026 will concentrate on producers and auction marts, with plans for explanatory videos and training sessions.

However, the regulatory landscape remains uncertain.

“Based on everything being paused right now, we could see further changes,” Scott said. “The information shared is just what was readily available from CFIA after industry consultation.”

The post Beef industry warns research cuts will set sector back for decades; CCIA outlines traceability prep appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

When most people think of British Columbia, they think of white-capped waves on the Pacific Ocean off the Sunshine Coast, the sweeping, snowy Coast Mountains of Whistler, or trees hung heavy with fruit in the Okanagan. 

Most people wouldn’t think of a landscape very similar to Alberta, with gently rolling hills divided by cropland, the whole region split by the Peace River. According to Nadia Mori, it’s a region that’s often overlooked.

But the area is being acknowledged with the Peace Region Living Lab.

Announced in July by federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, Living Labs is a federal initiative to have producers work with scientists and other collaborators and organizations to test innovative practices and technologies. Previously, the Living Labs were only in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. Now, they have been expanded across the country, with an emphasis on agri-environmental issues.

The Peace Region Living Lab is unique, however, because it crosses the border into Alberta. Mori, the extension co-ordinator for the Living Lab, says pairing two provinces for a program is uncommon but is being done in the Peace because of the agricultural similarities of the regions in B.C. and Alberta.

Previously, Mori worked for 10 years as a forage and range extension specialist in Saskatchewan. When she got involved with the B.C. Forage Association, she saw an opportunity to continue the work she loved with the Living Lab.

“I was quite passionate about putting on things that could possibly be useful for farmers and ranchers,” Mori says. “And just help them have the knowledge that they need to make things go better on their operations.”

The Peace Region Living Lab focuses on a variety of different topics, such as lime application and vermicomposting. There’s also a large emphasis on the cattle industry, with the Living Lab exploring topics such as intercropping, cover cropping and rotational grazing.

Research topics 

Mori says the mission of the Living Lab is “enhancing agro-ecosystems in the Peace region,” while focusing on carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emission reduction.

“The carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emission is sort of the overarching sheet that binds it all together,” she says.

Producers usually bring forward projects that they would like to see researched.

“The 55 producer projects that we have there, I would say every one is unique,” Mori says.

She says there are a variety of projects being done on many different topics. While some are seeing how they could rejuvenate a pasture or hayfield without breaking the soil to reseed, others are taking a deeper look at multi-paddock grazing and how quickly it might make an impact on the land. There are also projects comparing very dense bale grazing to a lower-density bale graze. These are some of the things producers in the area have expressed interest in learning.

Each project always comes back to the environment, however. Along with the greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration focus, the Living Lab will be doing other things to focus on the environment, such as environmental co-benefits, which is finding other benefits that are a result of applying the best management practices, Mori explains.

Producer role

Living Labs take a unique approach to research by directly involving producers. The producer commits to joining the project for however long it may go on, and they provide some of their land to be used to conduct the experiments, trials and samples. In return, the producer gets to express exactly what they would like researched.

“The special thing about the Living Labs is that it’s producer-focused and driven,” Mori says. The producer works with a research team, which is assigned by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Mori says they can also pull in additional expertise, if need be, such as from agrologists or experts from nearby universities. 

Mori says the Peace Region Living Lab is also doing something different, with what she calls a “learning cluster.” This means that if something isn’t going as expected for a producer, the Living Lab can bring an expert to go out to the field with the producer. Neighbours who are also interested in the topic can join, and as a group, they can discuss what may be going wrong.

“Then we can have just a little session looking at what might be going on on that parcel,” Mori says. “And so, again, each producer can make this a very tailored experience, what would be helpful for them.”

Karin Schmid is a beef production and extension specialist with Alberta Beef Producers, which is heading the Alberta AgriSystems Living Lab, currently focusing on the Peace, west-central and southern Alberta.* She says the Living Lab gives researchers and industry experts a chance to work directly with producers in the field.

“It’s about looking to see what’s happening on the ground under actual production conditions,” Schmid says. “And so it also has producers involved every step of the way with their experts.”

Schmid adds the lab demonstrates the ways that beef and forage farmers, alongside crop producers, can expand on the work they’re already doing on their operations. Hand-in-hand with that, the Living Lab provides an opportunity to show whether what researchers say should work does work in the field and if geography or production systems play a part.

“I also think it could really create a community of like-minded producers interested in trying new things or tweaking existing practices who can share experiences, learn from each other and better others,” she says.

Soil sampling and mapping

Although Food and Water Wellness is more involved with other Living Labs in Alberta, Kimberly Cornish, director of the organization, says they also wanted to provide the same service to the Peace Region Living Lab as the other ones: predictive soil mapping and metre-deep soil sampling.

To map the soils, they use their soil samples to create maps of soil variables from 60 sites in the region. Cornish says they use 60 layers of data to determine the most efficient places to sample.

“When that sample is taken, it can be extrapolated without a lot of noise, because it’s already kind of correlated to all of those layers of data,” Cornish says. “And then we add in another 200 layers of remotely sensed data across the growing seasons to create those carbon maps and bulk density maps.”

They will take samples from all the different sites in the Peace region, as well as a few additional sites.

“They’ll be able to have a carbon map for the entire peace region as an outcome of the project, as opposed to just data on the specific farms and the Living Lab that they’re working on,” Cornish says.

The future

The Peace Region Living Lab is just starting. The first year of the five-year project was spent as an establishment year, gathering baseline data. Mori explains funding was approved late in the year, after farmers had already made plans and the cropping season was well underway.

However, 2023 will see the practices implemented. Mori says they will also have at least seven or eight field tours every summer, put on by the different groups involved with the lab.

Schmid says there are indications the Alberta AgriSystems Living Lab could get extended past the five years, but even with only the five years, she believes they can create change with the work they’ll do through the lab.

“I think, hopefully, we’ll eventually be able to provide some direction around government policy solutions to climate resilience that are practical for producers.”

As a resident of the Peace region, Mori takes pride in the work taking place on the Living Lab — both on the B.C. and Alberta sides. Although the government has emphasized the importance of the environmental work that will come out of these Living Labs, Mori says it’s also important to recognize and build on the environmental work producers are already doing.

“I feel as a producer, you always get these new buzzwords shot at you, like very recently it was ‘regenerative agriculture’ and before that it was ‘sustainable’,” she says. “I sense that producers are pretty tired of this … I think at the end of the day, what we’re trying to do is just help the producer have an easier time to make the bottom line work, as it’s not easy being out there, with all the change that’s being thrown at you.”

She says if they can find ways to help producers improve how their farms operate, then that is just as important.

“If we can help a little bit with that, then I think we’ve been successful.”

*Update: This story originally stated the Alberta Beef Producers (ABP) were involved in the Peace Region Living Lab. ABP is not involved with the Peace Region Living Lab, but is heading the Alberta AgriSystems Living Lab, which is present in the Peace region, as well as southern and west-central Alberta. We regret the error.

The post Peace Region Living Lab includes learning cluster appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

But Silva knew she wanted to work with animals one day. Her interest in agriculture and animals persisted through high school, driving her to study animal science at the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco in Recife.

“Agriculture is one of the main pillars for the Brazil economy, a fact that contributed to my interest in food production,” says Silva.

Then, an undergraduate internship in the U.S. gave her a chance to work with beef cattle.

“Having the chance to get to know more of the beef industry and learning different aspects of the production sector with hands-on activities motivated me to pursue my studies and career in that area,” says Silva. Silva earned her PhD from the University of Florida, specializing in beef cattle nutrition. Her research at the university’s North Florida Research and Education Center focused on environmental and diet-induced stress in cattle, and she looked at ways to make cattle healthier and more efficient.

Silva was recently appointed as the inaugural Beef Cattle Research Council-Hays research chair in beef production systems at the University of Alberta. While piloting the maiden voyage of the research program, her goal is to find ways for beef producers to lower the costs of producing forage while leading in sustainable production.

New to Canada, Silva’s days are eventful and busy. Not only is she assuming a new role as research chair, but also establishing a home and working to bedrock relationships with beef researchers at the University of Alberta and as well as with others in the cow-calf sector and beef industry. Whether she’s in Brazil, Florida or Western Canada, Silva likes to get outside. Trail rides, hiking and admiring the outdoors are favourite hobbies of the newly appointed chair. “I also enjoy watching movies,” she says with a laugh.

Bridging the gap

The Beef Cattle Research Council (BCRC) has committed $1.5 million over the next 10 years for the new program and the University of Alberta is matching the commitment. Dan and Kathy Hays have pledged $1 million towards the chair. Dan is a university alumnus and former Canadian senator, and his father, Harry, created the Hays Converter beef breed, which the family donated to the university for research. Cargill and McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada also contributed.

Dr. Reynold Bergen is the science director of the BCRC. The BCRC allocates the research portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-off and is Canada’s largest producer-led funder of cattle, forage and beef research, Bergen explains.

“In addition to funding research projects, the BCRC also supports research chairs where key expertise is needed, ensuring that applied research and extension continues and to train the next generation of researchers in practical research,” says Bergen.

Bergen expressed enthusiasm for Silva’s appointment to the new position, as “her curiosity for multiple areas, and how they affect one another, made her stand out among the candidates. But what really made her stand out was her enthusiasm to seek out and pursue the opportunities she was presented and even make some of her own opportunities to study many different aspects of beef production in different parts of the world.

“This made us feel that she would be an asset to beef research in Canada,” says Bergen.

One of the goals of this program is to bond homegrown knowledge with the latest applied research in genetics, forage, feed and management practices, while also incorporating the latest technology.

“Dr. Silva will help to bridge the gap between the University of Alberta’s long-standing strengths in livestock genomics, rangeland, ecology and meat science and help balance the university’s strengths in basic science with applied research that considers the whole production system,” says Bergen.

Teaching will be part of Silva’s role, showing students how and why it’s necessary to be knowledgeable in multiple areas of industry. Producer extension will also be key, ensuring that research results are relevant, useful to and adopted by producers, says Bergen.

A few examples of technology transfer could include improved forage options, enhanced gut function (which will reduce methane emissions) and improving cattle health, resulting in using fewer antibiotics.

Tackling winter feeding

Silva wants to explore several areas in beef production, including ways to improve feed efficiency, minimize labour and fuel, ease stress on cattle and improve animal health.

“I want, with my research, to find ways for beef producers to be more profitable and sustainable,” she says.

Winter is one of the biggest challenges Canadian producers face, and feed is the highest-cost line item. Silva is familiar with winter feeding strategies employed by western Canadian producers, such as reducing days on feed and extending grazing as much as possible.

“It is a challenge because it may depend on how the winter is and the forage availability, which is compromised by many factors, including drought,” she says. Silva hopes to find ways to reduce winter feeding costs without compromising animal performance.

The beef industry in Alberta is steeped in history and is an important part of this agriculture-based province’s bedrock.

“I am honoured to have come here to be involved with such an industry,” says Silva.

– Dale Bliss’s father was a farmer and cattle producer. She writes about agriculture from the small Florida farm where she was born and raised.

The post From Recife to Edmonton: Dr. Gleise Silva takes the helm of new research chair appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

An opportunity to study at an agriculture program in New Zealand was just one of the experiences that led her to blend her background in cow-calf production and passion for science into a promising career.

“I think it was a combination of getting that taste for the science behind agriculture but a combination of growing up around it,” said Scott. “I just fell in love with the rural lifestyle and cows and science, and I think I found a pretty good way to combine all those things.”

Scott was raised on her family’s cow-calf operation west of Lacombe, Alta. Growing up, her family had a primarily Blonde d’Aquitaine herd, and currently they raise commercial Red Angus cattle.

“Like most kids I helped with the day-to-day chores growing up,” she said. “I’ve always loved animals and especially cows and horses, and I did a 10-year run with the horse 4-H program.”

After high school, Scott began studying biology at university, then spent a semester abroad in New Zealand, which helped inspire her to alter her path. Upon returning home, she changed her program and obtained an animal science degree at the University of Saskatchewan before going on to receive a graduate science degree in bovine parasitology.

Today, Scott works at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Lacombe Research Centre as a research technician. She has held this position for two and a half years, working in the Livestock Carcass Merit and Market Competitiveness program.

“I’m part of a team of scientists and research techs, and we work in the beef industry and other red meat industries, mainly beef and pork, to provide research and a scientific foundation for improvements and provide data for the Canadian beef industry,” she explained. “We’ll collect data on beef quality standards in our facility, everything from meat colour to marbling to grading to fat and protein composition.”

Scott credits working towards her master’s degree as an experience that shaped her career path. “I really enjoyed the part at the end where I got to go to some conferences and make posters and present my research,” she said. “Now that I’ve got a career in that area, that I’m more the hands-on, technical support staff is a pretty good fit for me.”

Scott is also a certified grader through the Canadian Beef Grading Agency. As one of two beef graders at the Lacombe Research Centre, she determines the quality and yield grades for each carcass that comes through this federally inspected facility.

“Our beef research program that I’m with is a support system for the Canadian Beef Grading Agency and providing the science behind how we determine yield grades and quality grades,” she explained.

To become certified as a beef grader, Scott passed a written exam and went through hands-on training at a number of commercial abattoirs. “There’s also an intensive practical hands-on, and then you are graded, pun intended, on your grading skills. So I would stand in the facility and grade carcasses as they went by, and a very experienced grader was right behind me scoring me on my ability to correctly identify the grade.”

In order to learn more about this part of the beef industry, Scott was selected to participate in the Cattlemen’s Young Leaders (CYL) program in 2019, with Michael Young, president of Canada Beef, as her industry mentor. As part of the program, she had a couple of travel opportunities prior to pandemic-related travel restrictions, including travelling to Denver’s National Western Stock Show.

The highlight of her CYL experience was having the opportunity to attend a conference on red meat marketing and improvement with Young in Nashville, Tennessee. “I learned a lot about retail meat packaging and marketing strategies,” she said.

“I did not think I would end up in this area of the beef industry, in meat production, and I totally jumped in brand-new two and a half years ago, so it’s been really interesting and helpful to have a mentor in the CYL program that can help me learn a bit quicker.”

From her experiences in this field, Scott views communication with consumers about the technologies in development as a particular challenge for the Canadian beef industry, but one that offers opportunities for deeper connection and understanding.

“One of the challenges will be introducing some of these new, science-based technologies into beef production and food safety,” she said.

“Whether the technology is at the cow-calf stage, at the feedlot stage, or at the retail cut beef marketing stage, I think we need to be more open and transparent with the consumer about different processing techniques and how and why they can improve food safety and consumer safety.”

Currently, Scott is enjoying her role with AAFC and likes being close to home and family. “I definitely want to continue to improve my knowledge of the red meat industry, and I’m really interested in how improving Canada’s beef quality and maintaining that can really help improve Canadian beef products for domestic and international markets and how we can communicate that to other markets, that Canadian beef is the best you can get.”

Along with this perspective comes her interest in helping to educate visitors to the Lacombe facility about this part of the beef industry, and Scott noted that these are her favourite days at work.

“I especially enjoy the 4-H groups that get to come through because they get to see the other side of beef production and the science that goes into carcass cut-outs and retail beef marketing.”

The post Finding a role in the science behind red meat production appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

During the 112-day finishing trial, the ADG of 1.64 kg/d for the Boviglo group was right in line with that for the steers that received the implant plus antibiotic and better than that of the control and implant-only groups.

It took another 44 days for the steers to finish to slaughter weight. From the start of the finishing trial to day 156, the ADG for the Boviglo steers was 1.53 kg/d and they finished out at 671 kg. The control group gained 1.47 kg/d finishing out at 657 kg. The implant-only group averaged 1.40 kg/d finishing at 677 and the implant-plus antibiotic group gained 1.46 kg/d finishing at 676 kg.

While the difference in the final numbers isn’t statistically significant in scientific terms, the 14-kg difference in final weights between the control and Boviglo steers would be significant for cattle feeders, explains ruminant nutrition research scientist WenZhu Yang.

Yang says this is really positive for beef producers because they could very well see more improvement with the use of Boviglo in commercial settings where conditions can be quite variable and challenging compared to the ideal, controlled conditions of the research setting with each of the 15 animals in the four treatment groups housed in its own pen.

The length of this study reinforces the positive findings, he adds, confirming that there were no detrimental effects associated with Boviglo.

There were no real differences in carcass quality, except the marbling score for the Boviglo steers was a bit better. Likewise, there were no important differences in the liver scores, manure analysis or blood tests, other than Boviglo had somewhat of a positive antioxidant effect.

The post Boviglo shows positive results in feeding trial appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

What they did: A five-year winter feeding study was conducted in central Alberta (2008-09 through 2012-13). Angus x Hereford and Red Angus x Charolais cows were fed barley silage, barley grain, barley straw and hay in confinement, or swath grazed on triticale or corn for 120 days. Confined cows were fed once daily and had a heated waterbowl. Swath-grazed cows were restricted to three or four days of feed at a time using electric fences; they also had an all-season waterer, bedding pack and windbreak. Forage quality was monitored weekly (confined feeding) or monthly (swath grazing); protein levels were adequate for all diets, and fibre levels and digestibility were similar. All production costs were calculated and cow weight, body condition score and ultrasound back-fat depth were monitored for all five years. Emissions of three greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide from crop production and yardage, methane from rumen digestion and manure, and nitrous oxide from soil and manure) were calculated for the first three years.

What they learned: Feed production: Growing feed for the confinement-fed control cows was always costlier than raising triticale for swath grazing. Corn was more expensive to grow than triticale, and at least as costly as the feed used in the confined treatment in three out of five years. But because yardage costs were lower for swath grazing than for confined feeding, average total feed costs for triticale ($0.78/cow/day) and corn grazing ($1.05/ cow/day) were much lower than for confined feeding ($1.98/cow/day).

Greenhouse gas emissions were 11 per cent lower for the triticale swath grazing and 24 per cent lower for the corn swath grazing compared to the confined feeding treatment. Nitrous oxide emissions from manure were slightly higher for swath grazing than confined feeding. But confined feeding had slightly higher carbon dioxide emissions (from burning diesel to haul feed, process feed, feed cows, and haul manure) and much higher manure methane emissions than the swath-grazed treatments. In fact, methane emissions accounted for nearly a quarter of total emissions in the confined treatment, but less than two per cent in the swath-grazing treatments.

Body weight and condition scores: Over the 120-day winter feeding period, confined cows maintained their body condition and backfat and gained weight. Swath-grazed cows lost weight and a small amount of body condition and backfat. At the end of the 120-day winter feeding period, cows fed in confinement weighed at least 100 lbs. more than either group of swath-grazed cows.

What it means: We’ve known for a long time that well-managed extended winter grazing programs can considerably reduce daily winter feeding costs. However, the new finding that extended winter grazing generates measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is important, especially considering the emission source. Most of the greenhouse gas emission reductions in swath-grazed cattle came from lower manure methane emissions, not from burning less diesel fuel. Using less diesel, time, labour and equipment to clean corrals and spread manure provides a direct benefit to the swath-grazing producer. But the fact that manure deposited during swath grazing emits less greenhouse gas than manure in a corral bedding pack really benefits society more than the producer. That’s an ecological good.

The loss in body condition score and weight in the swath-grazed cows is equally noteworthy. Swath-grazed cattle have higher energy needs because they are more exposed to wind chill and work harder for their feed. These swath-grazed research cattle lost body condition and weight even though they were provided with water, bedding, a windbreak, and cross-fencing to ensure that fresh feed was available every few days. They probably would have lost much more weight, backfat and body condition if they had not had bedding or a windbreak, or if uncontrolled access to the swaths had allowed them to eat the best-quality feed first and waste the rest, or if snow had been used as the sole water source. This goes double for heifers and young cows that are still growing. Cows that don’t reach their optimal body weight and condition before the breeding season starts will cycle later, rebreed and calve later (or not at all), and be culled sooner. The economics of mismanaged extended winter grazing may be profoundly unfavourable if females are culled before they have weaned enough calves to pay for themselves.

The Beef Research Cluster is funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada with additional contributions from provincial beef industry groups and governments to advance research and technology transfer supporting the Canadian beef industry’s vision to be recognized as a preferred supplier of healthy, high-quality beef, cattle and genetics.

The post Another look at the costs and benefits of swath grazing appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Meat science researcher and nutritionist Dr. Ira Mandel says the new facility will allow the university to amalgamate the beef research herds from New Liskeard and Guelph.

“We’re going to have a much larger herd here,” he said.

The cow-calf area will have room for 288 mature cows and be equipped with automated feeders to measure individual intake allowing researchers to study everything from correlating genomic traits to feed efficiency to studying greenhouse gas emissions. A separate facility will house 72 bred heifers and 96 replacements.

Depending on budgets, Mandel says there will be 48 or 60 cow pens with six head per pen.

The cow-calf facility will contain two cow barns and a heifer barn, connected by a common handling area.

The cow-heifer barn will be the first phase, to be completed next year in what is currently a soybean field adjacent to the current buildings.

A new feedlot barn will come next, after the demolition of many of the current buildings that were erected in 1969. The university has had a limited amount of feedlot space, since losing a barn about 15 years ago that held 48 head. The new barn will contain 24 pens at four animals per pen for a total of 96 head on feed at any one time.

The provincial government, through the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario, is investing $12.4 million in the facility, with the federal government and Beef Farmers of Ontario contributing about $3.1 million together.

The investment is important to the future of beef farming in Ontario, says Joe Hill, vice-president of Beef Farmers of Ontario, particularly in terms of environmental best practices. “As an individual farmer it is harder to address these things, but at a research scale, we can sort out where the issues are and how to best manage them at a farm level. It is going to save farmers a lot of time and energy trying to sort through what their options are and how to meet these challenges.”

New facilities can also improve the University’s recruiting sales pitch for top-quality researchers, as well as students with an interest in livestock production.

One major project planned for the new facility will be the identification of genes and genomic markers to improve feed efficiency and decrease methane emissions in beef cattle. The federal government and Beef Farmers of Ontario are funding this work by Dr. Angela Canovas which dovetails nicely into the work by Dr. Katie Wood into best management practices to improve feed efficiency.

The province, the industry and the university invested $25 million in a new dairy research centre that opened in 2015 just up the road from the beef station. The beef barns are the second step in a long-term plan to upgrade all livestock research facilities at the university.

The post Eastern beef research facilities get an upgrade appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The funds announced are to help create a completely new cow-calf and heifer research facility next to the current beef research station, and a new cattle finishing facility after the demolition of some of the current buildings.

Research on genomic testing of cows will also be funded by the money announced during an event Thursday at the research station near Elora.

Jeff Leal, Ontario’s minister of agriculture, food and rural affairs, announced $12.4 million in funding for the project.

“This new facility will develop new methods and best practices for more efficient and sustainable beef production, bolstering what is important to us all, the economic competitiveness of Ontario’s beef sector,” said Leal, lauding the groups and organizations that worked to make the beef research facility happen.

“Ontario will continue to be an international leader in livestock research,” he said.

Stewart Cressman, chair of the Agriculture Research Institute of Ontario — which owns and funds agriculture research facilities in the province — said he knows how difficult it is in other parts of the country and the world to get livestock research facilities funded.

“We are very privileged to have a government that invests in livestock research,” he said, adding that such investments are important for the future competitiveness of Ontario and Canadian agriculture.

Such facilities are also necessary for the university to continue to attract leading researchers from around the world to Guelph, said Daniel Atlin, the university’s vice-president, external.

“This facility will have impacts locally, across the province, nationally and around the world,” he said.

Bringing in top faculty, with top research facilities also attracts students, said Rene Van Acker, dean of the Ontario Agriculture College.

It’s a challenge for the university to attract students to its agriculture programs — despite multiple jobs awaiting each graduate — and facilities like the beef research station will help, he said.

Lawrence MacAulay, federal minister of agriculture and food, announced $2 million in support for a genomic project with Beef Farmers of Ontario to profile cows in Eastern Canada to improve feed efficiency.

A one per cent improvement in feed efficiency can result in annual savings of $11.1 million for the beef sector, he said. It also helps reduce costs at the farm and reduces methane and manure volumes.

In the long term, the facility will help farmers who are dealing with more public pressure on environmental practices, said Joe Hill, vice-president of Beef Farmers of Ontario.

“As an individual farmer it is harder to address these things, but at a research scale, we can sort out where the issues are and how to best manage them at a farm level. It is going to save farmers a lot of time and energy trying to sort through what their options are and how to meet these challenges.”

The facility will help beef producers remain competitive and able to take advantage of trade opportunities, he said.

The beef facility has been many years in planning and is the second major livestock facilities investment at the university, after the large dairy research facility which opened in 2015.

Work is expected to begin this fall on the beef cow research facility, with the feedlot facility after that, and completion expected by sometime in 2018.

— John Greig is a field editor for Glacier FarmMedia based at Ailsa Craig, Ont. Follow him at @jgreig on Twitter.

The post Guelph gets new beef research facility appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

TAC will act as a technology training hub for regional livestock producers, as well as a research resource for students studying livestock production at the college. With a focus on beef cattle and sheep, TAC will be set up to help producers enhance production efficiency, herd health and animal welfare on their operations. The funding for TAC amounts to $350,000 per year for five years to support the core operations, and is renewable if the centre is successful.

“Every year research is conducted on new products, or on new practices that can really make a difference to the profitability of the beef industry,” said Stephen Scott, executive director of the Canadian Hereford Association. “Unfortunately, the commercialization of research outcomes into new on-farm practices is a rare occurrence. The Technology Access Centre will be a place for producers to bridge the gap between the newest science and implementation of these practices on their own operations. The centre will provide Alberta beef producers with the tools they need to remain competitive in a changing marketplace.”

Operating within Olds College Centre for Innovation (OCCI), the applied research arm of Olds College, TAC will be overseen by an advisory board with members drawn from the OCCI and various industry stakeholder groups.

“Olds College is known for its long-stand­­ing history in agriculture training, and this makes us the ideal location for the Technology Access Centre for Livestock Production,” explains Tanya McDonald, acting vice-president of advancement at Olds College.

“TAC will allow us to work directly with producers in helping solve problems faced in every livestock operation.”

It will also help the college expand its collaborations with the University of Alberta, Livestock Gentec, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, as well as individual producers.

The post $1.7 million for Olds College research centre appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Well-managed packing plants can minimize the transfer of bacteria from the animal to the carcass, but they can’t eliminate it completely. Many food safety interventions such as hide-on carcass washes, hide-off carcass washes, organic acid sprays, steam pasteurization, steam vacuums and trimming of visible contamination have been implemented to essentially eliminate these pathogens. Other than carcass washes and trimming, many of these interventions are too costly for smaller abattoirs to install and operate.

Two things that bacteria need to survive are water and the right temperature. In Canada, beef carcasses must be chilled to a surface temperature of 7 C or less within 24 hours of carcass dressing because E. coli and many other pathogens do not grow well in cold temperatures. Some packing plants periodically spray carcasses with cold water as they chill to avoid carcass weight loss. However, allowing carcass surfaces to dry as they chill may starve the surface bacteria of water, forcing them to dry out and die.

The effects of dry-chilling on bacterial survival have been studied before. Some studies have found that it works and others have found that it doesn’t. It’s difficult to understand these contradictory results, because most of these studies haven’t described the carcass or cooler temperatures, humidity or airflow parameters in detail.

A soon-to-be-published study led by Dr. Xianqin Yang of AAFC Lacombe (Effects of Dry Chilling on the Microflora of Beef Carcasses at a Canadian Beef Packing Plant; Journal of Food Protection 79:538-543) studied whether dry-chilling could be an effective way to control pathogens in a commercial packing plant.

What they did: This study was conducted at a commercial beef-packing plant that processes 200 head of cattle per week and routinely dry-chills carcasses for three days before fabricating them. Groups of 25 carcasses were selected at random, and swabbed for surface bacteria at the start of chilling, and again after they had been chilled for one, two, four, six, eight, 24 and 67 hours. Numbers of aerobes (bacteria that grow in the presence of oxygen and suggest airborne contamination), coliforms (common indicators of fecal contamination) and Escherichia coli were determined.

Another 25 carcasses at various locations in the cooler were fitted with probes to measure carcass surface and deep leg temperatures. Ambient air temperature, movement and relative humidity were set to 0 C, 1.65 m/s and 88 per cent and monitored throughout the chilling process.

What they learned: On average, shoulder and rump surfaces took between 13 and 16 hours to reach 7 C, and the deep leg took up over 32 hours to reach 7 C. The numbers of aerobes on carcass surfaces were reduced by 90 per cent when the first hour of chilling had passed, and by 99 per cent once the first day of chilling was complete. The subsequent 43 hours of chilling didn’t reduce the numbers of aerobes any further.

Numbers of coliforms and E. coli on carcasses were reduced by more than 90 per cent within the first hour, and by more than 99 per cent by the time the first day of chilling was complete. No coliforms or E. coli were found after the full 67 hours of chilling were completed.

What it means: This study showed that numbers of aerobes, coliforms and E. coli on carcass surfaces could be reduced by 99 per cent within a 24-hour dry-chilling period with appropriate air temperature, speed and humidity parameters. Dry-chilling process may be a cost-effective method to control microbiological contamination of beef carcasses in abattoirs where daily kill volumes don’t justify an investment in hide-on or hide-off carcass washes, sprays, or carcass pasteurizers. It may also be useful for facilities serving export markets that do not yet recognize the effectiveness of some of the interventions commonly used in large commercial packing facilities.

Small and large packers can effectively minimize the number of bacteria on beef carcasses. They just need to use different approaches.

Two more things: April 22 is Earth Day, so take a look back at the January research column to recall some of the environmental improvements that Canada’s beef industry made over the past 30 years. We’d also like your help to identify forage, cattle and beef research priorities as we prepare to update Canada’s National Beef Research Strategy. You can access our research survey and share your thoughts at the Beef Cattle Research Council website.

The Beef Research Cluster is funded by the National Checkoff and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada with additional contributions from provincial beef industry groups and governments to advance research and technology transfer supporting the Canadian beef industry’s vision to be recognized as a preferred supplier of healthy, high-quality beef, cattle and genetics.

The post Dry-chilling beef carcasses (and two other things) appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.