Glacier FarmMedia — U.S. agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack says the United States is trying to regain its competitive edge in world agricultural markets.

He told delegates attending the 2024 Commodity Classic conference that for many years the U.S. had better transportation logistics than its competitors and that gave the country a price advantage in overseas markets.

But that competitive advantage has evaporated due to large infrastructure investments by Brazil and Argentina.

“That price difference over time has disappeared,” said Vilsack.

It’s why the U.S. “doubled down” with the passing of the Bipartisan Infrastructure deal in 2021, a bill that will result in improved roads and bridges, ports and locks and dams.

But those investments will take time to come to fruition. In the meantime, the U.S. is going to attempt to boost exports through increased funding of export promotion programs, said Vilsack.

Todd Hultman, lead analyst for DTN, told farmers that spot corn futures will likely trade in the range of $4 to $5.25 per bushel in 2024-25, while soybeans will likely bounce around between $11 and $14 per bu.

His colleague John Baranick, DTN’s ag meteorologist, told U.S. growers to expect a hot spring and summer.

He is forecasting wet spring conditions in the northern and eastern portions of the country, while the summer will by dry throughout much of the Plains region.

Arlan Suderman, chief economist with StoneX, said Brazil’s soybean crop is getting bigger.

The company surveyed its farmer customers in that country, and they indicated that the crop could be 151.6 million tonnes, up 1.2 million tonnes from its previous forecast.

Corn production is pegged at 124.5 million tonnes, unchanged from the previous forecast, considering growers just finished planting the second crop of corn.

Suderman said a lot of those Brazilian soybeans will be heading to China, which appears to be stockpiling a wide variety of crops.

“So why are they buying?” he said during a live taping of the U.S. Farm Report at the 2024 Commodity Classic.

One theory is that the government is buying a large amount of corn and other crops from its growers to prop up domestic prices.

That is also creating an inviting environment for imports. But those imports are increasingly being supplied by Brazil and Ukraine, while U.S. crops are slowly being squeezed out, said Suderman.

Chip Flory, editor emeritus of Pro Farmer and host of AgriTalk, wonders if China is preparing for an invasion of Taiwan.

Suderman thinks that is a distinct possibility. Chinese president Xi Jinping has stated that he is going to bring Taiwan back into the fold during his tenure in office and he is 70 years old.

Flory wonders if the political landscape is setting up for another trade war between China and the U.S. if Donald Trump is re-elected as U.S. president.

If that happens, growers should prepare for another round of direct subsidies to offset the loss of that market.

Carah Hart, president of the National Association of Farm Broadcasting, spoke about the threat that electric vehicles pose to radio broadcasters.

Car manufacturers say electromagnetic interference in electric vehicles causes static and limited coverage with AM radio.

Despite mitigation solutions, some EV manufacturers have stopped putting AM radios in their cars.

Hart said that is having a huge detrimental impact for farm broadcasters around the country.

She encouraged delegates attending the general session of the Commodity Classic to support the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act, which would require access to AM broadcast stations in motor vehicles.

The post Commodity Classic: U.S. fighting for market share says Vilsack appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The region, a stronghold of the conservative opposition to socialist President Luis Arce, is in its sixth day of protests that have seen thousands of people take to the streets and nights of clashes with weaponized fireworks and cars burned.

On Tuesday hundreds of women marched to the city police headquarters in support of Camacho, demanding his release.

On the nearby streets were burnt-out vehicles, smouldering fires and blockades from the overnight clashes.

The protests, sparked by the Dec. 28 arrest of Camacho over an alleged coup in 2019, are deepening divides between lowland Santa Cruz and the highland, more indigenous political capital La Paz, which have long butted heads over politics and state funds.

Camacho was seized by special police forces, taken out of the province by helicopter and is now in a maximum security jail in the highland city El Alto. He denies all charges that relate to the divisive removal of former socialist leader Evo Morales in 2019.

Santa Cruz leaders pledge to fight until Camacho is released, picketing government buildings and stopping transport of grains. There are also calls for a federal system giving the city more autonomy and state funds.

“We have a mandate from our assembly that nothing leaves Santa Cruz and that is what we are going to do,” said Rómulo Calvo, head of the powerful Pro Santa Cruz civic group.

Marcelo Cruz, president of the International Heavy Transport Association of Santa Cruz, said routes were being blocked so no trucks could leave the province.

“No grain, animal or supply from the factories should leave Santa Cruz for the rest of the country. The blocking points are being reinforced,” he said.

“Outlaw state”

Morales and allies — including current president Arce — say his ouster was a coup and have prosecuted opposition figures they blame for it. Jeanine Anez, who became interim president after his removal, was jailed for 10 years in 2022.

Human rights groups say the government is using a weak justice system to go after its opponents.

“We are no longer a state of law, we are an outlaw state,” said Erwin Bazan, from the right-wing Creemos party, saying the charges against Camacho were politically motivated.

Others blame Camacho for tensions in 2019 which saw dozens killed in protests, including supporters of Morales.

“Let him go to jail for 30 years. We want justice,” said Maria Laura, a supporter of the ruling Movement for Socialism (MAS) party.

Morales remains the party’s leader though has at times clashed with new president Arce.

Paul Coca, a lawyer and analyst in La Paz, said the internal divisions in the ruling party were partly behind the arrest, with Arce trying to neutralize criticism from Morales.

“(Arce) had to confront his party leader or directly go against Luis Fernando Camacho. And he obviously chose to go all out against Camacho,” he said.

The blockade could dent food supply to other parts of the country as well as exports and growth as Bolivia grapples with a large fiscal deficit and low reserves.

“Santa Cruz is the economic stronghold of Bolivia,” said Gary Rodríguez, general manager of the Bolivian Institute of Foreign Trade (IBCE).

The region is the main producer of soy, sugar cane, wheat, rice, corn and livestock.

“All this great private productive effort is now in danger.”

— Reporting for Reuters by Adam Jourdan and Daniel Ramos; additional reporting by Monica Machicao.

The post Bolivia farm region blocks borders, grain transport in protests appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

“If you take the lead as producers, you own it,” he says. “If the government takes the lead, they own it. We know what that’ll be like. They’ll just keep adding more and more to it.”

Schellenberg is president of the Canadian Cattle Association (CCA) and a rancher from Beechy, Sask. He was speaking at the Saskatchewan Stock Growers annual general meeting in Assiniboia, Sask., in early June. CCA has teamed up with the Livestock Market Association of Canada in asking the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for an exemption to the Transfer of Care (TOC) document requirements for short-haul cattle, he says.

Rick Wright, the executive assistant of the Livestock Markets Association of Canada (LMAC), has been working on the issue of TOC documents as well.

“It’s onerous because the responsibility for it has been put on the trucking industry and on the producers to provide the information. At the market level where we’re at, we’re not required to have the Transfer of Care document to receive the cow, because we don’t always have people on staff 24/7 when the cattle arrive.”

What is Transfer of Care?

CFIA’s website lists three requirements for TOC documents. They include the animals’ condition upon arrival; when the animals were last watered, fed and rested; and when the animals arrived at the slaughter establishment or assembly centre.

In 2019, the CFIA amended the Transfer of Care documents. They made four main changes, which involved categorizing animals fit for transport; record-keeping for transporters; required feed, water and rest times; and contingency planning. The CFIA also requires Transfer of Care documents to be filled out when taking livestock on a short haul.

At the time, the amendments were announced but not implemented. CFIA said they would use a two-year educational period to teach producers and other people in the industry about the changes that were made. However, Wright says this didn’t happen.

“One of the things that came up was during the two years between the change of the regulations and the hard enforcement of the regulations, there was supposed to have been an educational period in there,” he says. “And there was no education, especially for the primary producers. So there’s your confusion. Number one level is that the primary producers that shipped the majority of the cow to the intermediate sites, no one knew that this was coming. No one knew why it was coming. And no one knew what they were supposed to do with it. And there was very little input.”

Industry response

“When the changes were made — and that was over two years ago in February that they were made — we weren’t looking at Transfer of Care documents as an issue. We were so wrapped up in the amount of hours on the road — especially for the long-haul cattle that was being reduced down from 48 to 36 hours — that the industry put most of their resources into their comments and trying to persuade the government not to reduce those particular hours. It was an oversight on the industry’s part, that we should have looked at the fine print closer. We just didn’t think it was a big deal that was going to amount to anything. But now we’re past the soft launch.”

In tandem, LMAC and CCA have asked the CFIA for an exemption for the short-haul regulations.

“We have no argument with a Transfer of Care document in the event that there is a compromised animal on the load, or an animal arrives compromised due to something that’s happened during transportation,” Wright says. “But to have a general requirement to have a Transfer of Care document that comes with animals on short hauls (is the issue), and we’ve asked for an exemption of under 300 miles.”

At the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association conference, Schellenberg talked about this as well, and spoke about the research the CCA has done on this topic.

“The health record or the success rate that we’ve got delivering cattle in those short hauls, we’ve probably got the best results that you can get,” he says, adding that “Ninety-nine per cent arrive in good condition. So we see no reason at all to justify the Transfer of Care being required for short haul.”

Schellenberg also shared part of a letter CCA and LMAC wrote together regarding the issue of short haul for the CFIA. According to Schellenberg, part of it reads: “This excellent track record suggests faster care process will not improve animal welfare outcomes for short haul. In very rare instances that negative welfare outcome will occur in short-haul cattle, durations of these risks are not the root causes of the problem.”

Wright says this change to the Transfer of Care documents is an issue because it causes unnecessary stress and work for the people who must handle the documents.

“If there is a compromised animal in the equation, well then it would trigger the need and use of a Transfer of Care document. So we’re asking for some common sense. This is overkill, is what it is.”

Wright says another issue is there is no standard form. While VBP Plus has a Transfer of Care form on its website for producers to use, CFIA doesn’t.

“There’s no CFIA, or government, form that the producers are required to fill out, that is the standard across the countryside,” he says. “But we’re part of the equation because the people that are being affected are our customers. And we will provide the information when the cattle are leaving our destination as to when they were last fed and watered.”

Wright says LMAC and CCA hope to meet with CFIA brass before the fall to make the case for an exemption and explain how the industry would handle an exemption.

“It’s very hard to change regulations once they’re in, but it’s the interpretation of the outcome. CFIA has a desired outcome, we have a desired outcome. And they’re both the same … Now maybe there’s some compromise there that we can get put together to make it easier. And that’s what we’re hoping. Will we see change this year? It’s hard to say,” says Wright.

Schellenberg says producers should step up and voice their opinions on the matter, as well, to help them prove their case to the CFIA.

“Timing is important,” he says. “With the federal government, decisions get made just like that and without warning. And I’m afraid if we sleep on this one, we’ll get bumped. That’s my input. It’s up to you as producers and voters to make that decision.”

CFIA responds

“This topic has been discussed by the joint Humane Transport Working Group for the cattle sector, which includes representatives from CFIA, AAFC, and industry. The group has discussed potential options to meet the (TOC) requirements, including partially pre-filled (TOC) documents for recurrent short hauls, the integration of the (TOC) information into livestock manifests or other documents/records already used by transporters and receivers. While there is no plan to amend the regulations, the CFIA continues to engage with industry and will consider solutions that are proposed to meet the (TOC) provision and the intent of the humane transport regulations.”

Although they are still in talks with the CFIA, Wright says they will continue to work to improve things for producers in the industry.

“I can tell you that industry is willing to step up anytime that it works and have a sit-down and try and work out something that will make life easier for these primary producers.”

The post Auction marts, cattle groups apprehensive about Transfer of Care requirements appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Financial statements of the meat-processing companies — which control 55 to 85 per cent of the market for beef, poultry and pork — contradict claims that rising meat prices were caused by higher labour or transportation costs, advisers led by National Economic Council director Brian Deese wrote in an analysis published on the White House website Friday.

Officials studied earnings statements from Tyson Foods, the chicken producer and biggest U.S. meat company by sales; Brazil-based JBS, the world’s biggest meatpacker; Brazilian beef producer Marfrig Global Foods, which owns most of National Beef Packing Co.; and Seaboard Corp.

Those statements showed a 120 per cent collective jump in their gross profits since the pandemic and a 500 per cent increase in net income, the analysis shows. These companies recently announced $1 billion in new dividends and stock buybacks, on top of the more than $3 billion they paid to shareholders since the pandemic began (all figures US$).

Trade group the North American Meat Institute accused the White House of “cherry-picking” data.

“It is no coincidence this blog post appears on the same day as the Consumer Price Index is released showing gas and energy prices are up nearly 60 per cent over the past 12 months which is nearly 10 times the rate of inflation for food,” president Julie Anna Potts said in a statement.

Profit margins — the spread companies are making over and above their costs — have increased significantly too, belying the argument that companies are just passing along higher labour and supply costs, the analysis said, with gross margins up 50 per cent and net margins up over 300 per cent.

“If rising input costs were driving rising meat prices, those profit margins would be roughly flat, because higher prices would be offset by the higher costs,” the analysis said.

Increases in meat prices accounted for 25 per cent of the rise in consumer prices for food consumed at home in November, a big driver in the surge in inflation seen in recent months.

Tyson increased the price of beef “so much — by more than 35 per cent — that they made record profits while actually selling less beef than before,” the advisers wrote.

The companies didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

The White House, hammered by Republicans over rising inflation, is scrambling to combat rising prices by clearing supply chain logjams and tackling what it views as uncompetitive practices by big companies, which are reporting big profit gains even as consumers suffer.

Friday’s blog — released after November consumer prices showed the largest annual gain since 1982 — reflects growing frustration by White House officials about continued increases in meat prices, an issue it flagged in September.

— Andrea Shalal reports on U.S. trade and economic policy for Reuters from Washington, D.C.

The post U.S. packer profit margins jumped 300 per cent during pandemic, economists say appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

As a statutory monopoly the port authority is both a port developer and regulator putting it in a conflict of interest, according to WGEA executive director Wade Sobkowich.

“We are working in a port oversight system that simply lacks proper checks and balances, in contrast to what we have in rail or air transportation where there are tools available to hold people accountable for decisions,” Sobkowich said in a news release Thursday.

“With marine ports, we have no recourse to an adequate appeal mechanism, no outside dispute resolution, no independent complaint process, and no effective input to (bod of) director nominations. The federal government needs to address these shortcomings in the Ports Modernization Review.”

The WGEA’s members are Canada’s biggest grain companies who handle more than 90 per cent of the nation’s bulk grain exports — most of them through Vancouver.

Why it matters: Most of Western Canada’s grain is exported through the Port of Vancouver; western farmers need the port to run efficiently and to keep costs, ultimately passed back to farmers, in check.

“The Government of Canada needs to act on the major clean-up of marine port governance that was recommended during the review of the Canada Transportation Act back in 2016-17,” Sobkowich said. “This is having a large negative effect on our ability to unlock existing capacity and to grow the agri-food export sector.”

Among the items on the WGEA’s list, it seeks:

• Adequate recourse to users to challenge and appeal port authority decisions.
• To address conflicts of interest that arise in port management’s role as developer and regulator/administrator.
• To make director appointment rules accountable:
• i) Overhaul nominating committee membership to reflect the users.
• ii) Remove outside interference with nominating committee decision making.
• iii) Allow people who actively work in industry to sit on the board.
• iv) Redesign appointments to adequately reflect provincial economies who rely on the port.
• To ensure port authorities are actively representing federal government jurisdiction on regulatory issues.

In 2019, 70 per cent of products exported from Vancouver were bulk commodities totalling 99.7 million tonnes — most of that from Western Canada.

Of that, 23.5 million tonnes, or 24 per cent of the total, was grain.

Total exports through Vancouver hit 144 million tonnes. Bulk grain, along with 7.5 million tonnes of containerized grain, accounted for 31 million tonnes, or 22 per cent of all Vancouver exports.

Yet the western provinces only get two seats on the port’s board — one for British Columbia and one for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, Sobkowich said in an interview.

“Something doesn’t add up here from our perspective when you have a port that is so important to the western Canadian economy,” he said.

“The nominating committee process (for port directors) gets interfered with by port management. We’ve been trying to get someone on there with a grain background for years.”

The last nominee from the Prairie provinces was a former vice-president with Cargill.

“We couldn’t even get him an interview,” Sobkowich said.

Vancouver also doesn’t allow directors representing port users to be actively working in the industry.

“Vancouver is very unique in that sense because other ports across the world, not only allow but encourage their users to sit on the board of directors,” he said. “Rotterdam, for example, has five users on the board of directors.”

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, in a separate release Friday, said the three Prairie premiers have written to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “to express a willingness to engage and work with the federal government on the port governance structure.”

“As a group, the western provinces make up 85 per cent of the port’s export value, but only have nine per cent of the representation on the board,” Moe said. “We believe that model does not provide balanced representation for the Prairie provinces and are asking for the (port authority) board to be restructured.”

The Saskatchewan government on Friday called for the board to be made up of two federal appointees, two appointees from each of the four Prairie provinces on the recommendations of port users, and one member representing municipalities that border the port authority’s jurisdiction.

‘Valuable space’

The WGEA is also concerned about what appears to be the port’s bias in favour of promoting a new container terminal, Sobkowich said.

The WGEA also suspects its members who operate grain export terminals at the port are paying for the new container terminal, although it’s unclear due to a lack of transparency, Sobkowich said.

“We believe those who stand to benefit should be the ones that should pay,” he said. “And we don’t feel that a developer, should be a regulator and that’s what is happening here. The same party that is advancing a project without a proponent, which will use valuable space in the Port of Vancouver to do container imports and exports, is being advanced by what is essentially a government entity.

“And that same entity is regulating us — charging us rents, charging us infrastructure fees, making decisions on environmental permit applications, making decisions on land use, making decisions on leases that get renewed or don’t get renewed.”

A review of port regulation began several years ago. In September 2019 Transport Canada released a document on what it heard from stakeholders about possible changes to be made.

“But it doesn’t look like it addressed the issues we have addressed here,” Sobkowich said.

Many of the complaints raised by the WGEA involve requirements under the Canada Marine Act, the Port of Vancouver said in a statement Thursday.

“It’s a complex mandate that requires balancing many opposing interests of a broad range of stakeholders, ultimately having to make decisions in the best interests of Canadians generally,” the port said.

“Many of the issues raised by the WGEA — governance, board nominations, and having to consider the impacts of port operations on local communities — are dictated by the Canada Marine Act, and therefore beyond the control of the port authority.”

To fulfill its mandate the port must to ensure infrastructure is in place to handle growing international trade, the port said. A lot of investment has gone into the port during the last 10 years benefitting all terminals, including for grain, resulting in record grain exports.

“Many of the current projects under way are specifically to build capacity for the grain sector, and others will address the increasing demand for container trade,” the port said. “Interestingly, containers are used to ship a significant amount of grain so those container capacity projects will benefit the agricultural sector. Any fees that we may charge terminal operators for common-use infrastructure improvements are subject to consultation with those operators.”

The port’s biggest challenge is the lack of industrial land, the port said.

“That may require difficult choices with respect to a current tenant, but overall the Port of Vancouver will remain Canada’s gateway for agricultural exports to the world.”

Check next week’s issue of the Manitoba Co-operator for more on this story.

— Allan Dawson reports for the Manitoba Co-operator from Miami, Man.

The port’s reply

The Port of Vancouver issued the following statement Thursday in response to concerns raised by the Western Grain Elevator Association on how the Port of Vancouver operates:

As a Canada Port Authority, we have a federal mandate established under the Canada Marine Act, to enable Canada’s trade through the Port of Vancouver, while protecting the environment and considering local communities. It’s a complex mandate that requires balancing many opposing interests of a broad range of stakeholders, ultimately having to make decisions in the best interests of Canadians generally.

Many of the issues raised by the WGEA — governance, board nominations, and having to consider the impacts of port operations on local communities — are dictated by the Canada Marine Act, and therefore beyond the control of the port authority.

In order to fulfill our federal mandate, we need to ensure port infrastructure is in place to handle growing international trade. For more than a decade, there has been an incredible amount of investment in the port and the surrounding gateway to benefit all terminals, including grain terminals. As a result, we have seen record grain cargo through the port in recent years, and many terminals have invested to grow their operations.

In planning for future infrastructure investment, we consider independent forecasts and consult with industry. Many of the current projects under way are specifically to build capacity for the grain sector, and others will address the increasing demand for container trade. Interestingly, containers are used to ship a significant amount of grain so those container capacity projects will benefit the agricultural sector. Any fees that we may charge terminal operators for common-use infrastructure improvements are subject to consultation with those operators.

Our biggest challenge in the Vancouver area is that there is not enough industrial land for all this growth, and so we have to make the best use of what we have. That may require difficult choices with respect to a current tenant, but overall the Port of Vancouver will remain Canada’s gateway for agricultural exports to the world.

CORRECTION, Feb. 18: Typo fixed in paragraph 14 to replace “wouldn’t” with “couldn’t.”

UPDATE, Feb. 19: Updated to include statements from the Port of Vancouver and the Saskatchewan government plus further clarifications.

The post Grain handler group seeks Vancouver port governance overhaul appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

With consumers panic-buying, there has been increased demand for pulses, as many are non-perishable, Mosnaim said.

“These products will be there for ages,” he said, suspecting many consumers may very well be unsure as to how to prepare pulses.

And with spring arriving, other consumers could shift away from pulses to fresh produce.

However, there’s one angle especially worrying to Mosnaim: transportation. He’s concerned about the transportation system breaking down under a COVID-19 pandemic — including imports, with returning cargo ships lacking the goods they would be normally carry on backhaul.

Then there’s the issue of exports, as rail blockades resulted in lengthy delays at Canada’s ports — especially at Vancouver, which handles the bulk of outbound shipments.

On top of the backlog caused by the blockades were issues created by the late harvest, the strike at Canadian National Railway in November, and weather-related problems along rail lines during the winter.

Together with these transportation issues, Mosnaim said there could be problems in getting supplies to farms for spring planting, such as fertilizer.

“This will be very interesting to see what happens,” he said.

— Glen Hallick reports for MarketsFarm from Winnipeg.

The post Pulse weekly outlook: Increased demand seen, but problems loom appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Toney, who ranches near Gull Lake, Sask., and serves as the chair of the Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association, runs around 500 cows in addition to a small backgrounding lot. Normally, his outfit puts up enough hay and silage each year to feed cattle through the winter and have enough left over for the spring.

“Due to the lack of rain, pastures are not as good as they normally are in the Gull Lake area. And our silage tonnage was down to maybe half of what it would normally be and hay production was down to half,” said Toney. “This year we will be completely out of hay,” he added, noting that he’s unsure how far the silage he does have will stretch.

Toney’s situation is not unique. Many beef producers across the Prairies have been searching the classifieds for hay and penciling out the cost of other feed options. In the summer, hay production in numerous parts of the Prairie was reported to be down, with eastern Manitoba in a particularly dire situation.

A large swath of Saskatchewan was approved for livestock tax deferrals, including the entire southern region, much of the central portion of the province and part of the north. Regions in B.C., Quebec and New Brunswick were also authorized for livestock tax deferrals.

“For Alberta, the feed shortages tend to start about Edmonton-south, and the farther south you get it gets progressively worse,” said Ted Nibourg, farm business management specialist at the Alberta Ag-Info Centre in Stettler. “North of Edmonton and up into the Peace Country, it sounds like the forage situation is pretty good up there, and it’s definitely moderated feed prices, hay prices in particular. But as you get farther south, the availability of the feed (decreases) and the cost of the feed goes up.”

Despite the availability of hay from other areas, the cost of transportation can be a hindrance.

“We’re hearing reports anywhere from $4 to $6 per loaded mile for hay, and that translates anywhere from $35 to $40 a bale, which really adds significantly to the cost,” Nibourg said.

For some producers, dry pastures have had a cumulative effect on their costs this year.

“A lot of guys had to pull their cows off pasture anywhere from a month to six weeks earlier than normal, and so what that has done is just increased the feeding period,” said Nibourg.

Purchasing enough hay to feed their herd until spring is the best choice for some; others will send their cows to custom feeders for the winter months. In more extreme situations, Nibourg stated, neither option will be quite enough to make it through.

“Sometimes the feed costs are so darn high… in some cases you’re going to be in a loss position, and we have got a number of producers just downsizing considerably. We’re hearing anywhere from 25 to 35 per cent cull rates this fall.”

Financial considerations come first when deciding which option is best for you.

“The primary factor they have to look at is all the costs involved and then do a partial budget to see which is the most economical for them,” said Nibourg.

For example, transportation costs are a factor in most options. Cost of freight will affect the price of bringing in hay from elsewhere, and it’s also a consideration if choosing to take cattle to a custom feeder, particularly given the distance from your operation to the destination.

The length of time cattle are custom fed can also affect more than the cost of feed. If cows will be fed during your calving season, there may be extra costs included.

“Typically, the cost of that is anywhere from $25 to $50 per live calf, and vet meds are going to be over and above that,” said Nibourg.

It may also be useful to take next spring’s pasture quality into consideration when creating your budget, given that this year’s conditions could force some producers to delay turning cows out to grass.

“This grass got hit pretty darn hard, and it begs the questions whether it went into the fall in good shape. And it may take another three, four weeks for it to come, so we may not be able to turn those cows out before the first of July,” he said. If this is the case, another month of feed may be required.

Another key aspect of budgeting is to include the projected price of next year’s calf crop.

“If they take a real tumble, we could still be in a loss situation,” said Nibourg. “On the other hand, if we experience a smaller calf crop due to the large cow cull, we might actually have a premium on those calves.

“You can pencil it out until the cows come home, but if it’s not going to pay in the end, it begs the question whether you want to stay into it,” he continued. “There’s got to be a return at the other end. Any feed going into those cows right now has to be charged against the calf crop next year.”

Still, cost isn’t the only factor to consider.

“It all boils down to the costs in the end, but you would never sacrifice animal welfare,” said Toney. “In that situation you would always be making sure that wherever you take your cattle, whether they’re at home or somewhere else, that they’re getting fed properly.”

If entering into a custom feeding arrangement, producers need to be careful to choose an operation that will take good care of their cattle. Nibourg advises drawing up a written agreement.

“You’re making the assumption that those cattle are going to be in reasonable shape coming back out,” he said. “A term care agreement for livestock is probably important so both parties agree on the conditions the cows go in and what condition they come out on.”

Find out as much as possible about the management practices of the custom feeding operations that you are considering. Asking about feeding programs and feed testing is crucial, as well as looking into herd health and biosecurity, proper facilities and vitamin and mineral programs.

“You’ve got to do a little bit of a background check,” said Toney, who suggested speaking with common acquaintances as well. “When you’re taking cattle to somewhere else to be pastured or to be fed for the winter, you want to make sure the person is going to take very good care of your cattle.”

For Toney, a mixture of buying feed and having some of his cows custom fed made the most financial sense for his operation. He first found a field of lentils that a producer hadn’t harvested and was available for him to purchase and bale.

“We’re going to use it for tub grinding and feeding with the silage to extend the silage,” he explained.

Purchasing enough feed at a cost-efficient rate, however, wasn’t going to be an option.

“We bought some feed that we got at a reasonable price and then prices kind of skyrocketed and we weren’t finding enough feed at the price that made it economical.”

With that, the idea of custom feeding came into play, and Toney began looking into options in eastern Saskatchewan, as they pasture cattle there. He also checked with friends in the Prince Albert and North Battleford areas regarding feed availability, custom feeders and costs.

Wintering part of his herd with Duane Thompson, a producer at Ituna in eastern Sask., emerged as an option. Toney compared this to the cost of buying more hay and keeping all his cows at home. Given the cost of transportation for hauling both cattle and hay, he decided that custom feeding was the way to go.

“The feed that we’ve grown at home, we’ll have cattle at home to utilize that. And then we just left cattle over there to make up the difference.”

His cows will be custom fed until the beginning of March, when he’ll bring them home for calving. That will get Toney through the feed gap. He also does a lot of winter grazing, so reducing the cows he keeps at home will make up for the shortage in winter grazing and feed.

There are several resources producers can use when deciding how to get their herd through a winter feed shortage. Provincial extension specialists can help create budgets and weigh options.

The post Consider more than cost during a winter feed shortage appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The province’s government relations minister, Larry Doke, on Wednesday announced producers who incurred wildfire damage on “tame and native lands” intended for grazing may now apply for assistance to get feed for affected livestock.

Winds of over 100 km/h around Oct. 16 fanned over 40 wildfires in the province’s southwest, affecting around 89,000 acres of mixed-use farmland and forcing the evacuations of about 1,200 people from their homes.

PDAP, the province said, will assist with “extraordinary” feeding costs, and with transportation costs associated with extraordinary feed and/or pasture rental. Eligible costs must be supported by receipts.

Damage to the actual pasture land is not eligible for assistance, the province said. Insurable losses, such as death or illness of livestock or damages to fences, buildings or bales, are not PDAP-eligible.

“Typically PDAP does not provide assistance for wildfire losses, because most fire losses are insurable,” Doke said in a release. “However, tame and native grazing lands are not insurable.”

The program adjustment, he said, “will fill that gap and provide Saskatchewan producers with additional peace of mind, and help ensure that operations affected by wildfire can recover sooner.”

PDAP is meant to help residents, small businesses, farms, First Nations, non-profit organizations and communities recover from natural disasters, by helping to cover the costs of uninsurable essential losses, cleanup, repairs and temporary relocation.

PDAP is considered a “last resort” program, not meant to compete with private insurers or to provide full compensation for substantial losses. Damages must have occurred in a municipality designated as eligible for PDAP assistance. Other PDAP eligibility criteria for 2017 are listed online.

“The majority” of damages from this fall’s fires in the province’s southwest were insurable, the province said Wednesday, but stakeholder consultations found “some types” of grazing lands could qualify for assistance.

The province reiterated it will also match donations up to $100,000 made to the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association Wildfire Relief Fund, which was set up to help affected producers. More information on the fund, including application, nomination and donation forms, is available online. — AGCanada.com Network

The post Wildfire-damaged grazing areas up for Saskatchewan aid appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

What they did: This study used 20 spayed, ruminally-cannulated, individually-penned heifers averaging 1,050 pounds. These obviously weren’t freshly weaned calves, but using older animals allowed the researchers to avoid confusing the effects of feed restriction with the effects of weaning stress, disease challenge, new diets, etc. Ten heifers were fed a high-forage (92 per cent) diet and 10 were fed a moderate-forage (60 per cent) diet for two weeks. For the next five days their intake was restricted to 25 per cent of what they had been eating. Then they were allowed to resume eating as much as they wanted for three weeks. During this recovery period, half of the high-forage heifers were switched to the moderate-forage diet, and vice versa.

Rumen microbes digest the animal’s feed and produce short-chain fatty acids. These short-chain fatty acids influence rumen pH, and are absorbed through the rumen wall into the bloodstream, where they provide up to 75 per cent of the animal’s energy needs. Some short-chain fatty acids also stimulate cells in the rumen wall to grow, divide, and function properly. Because of their important roles in digestive health, the researchers collected very detailed rumen pH and fatty acid measurements throughout the study. They also measured non-esterified fatty acids in the bloodstream. These are fatty acids that have been released due to fat breakdown in the body in response to an energy shortage.

What they learned: Average rumen pH didn’t differ between the two diets during the initial two-week pre-restriction period. Rumen pH increased in both groups of heifers during the feed restriction period, partly because there was less feed for the rumen microbes to digest. The rate of short-chain fatty acid absorption also dropped by nearly 20 per cent in both groups during the feed restriction period, but specialized techniques were used to confirm that slower absorption wasn’t just caused by less food fermenting in the rumen. Non-esterified fatty acid levels in the bloodstream rose in both groups of heifers during feed restriction, but more in the high-forage group than in the moderate-forage group. This suggests that the forage-fed heifers were burning more body fat to meet their own energy needs during the feed restriction.

The effects of the pre-restriction and post-restriction diets on intake and rumen function during the three-week recovery period were compared. Pre-restriction diet: The heifers that had started the experiment on the high-forage diet took longer to increase their feed intake to the expected level than those that had been on the moderate-forage diet. The heifers that had started on the high-forage diet also spent over three hours per day at a pH below 5.5 during the first week of the recovery period, nearly twice as long as those that had started on the moderate-forage diet. Short-chain fatty acid absorption rates during the recovery period were the same regardless of which diet the heifers were on before restriction. Post-restriction diet: Unlike the pre-restriction diet, heifers fed the moderate-forage diet increased their feed intake more slowly than heifers fed a high-forage diet during the recovery period. Heifers fed the moderate-forage diet during the recovery period also spent over 4.5 hours per day at a rumen pH below 5.5, compared to less than 15 minutes for heifers fed the high-forage diet during the recovery period. Short-chain fatty acid absorption rates during the recovery period were the same regardless of which diet the heifers were on after restriction.

What it means: Assessing the real production, health and economic effects of these diets would require a larger study using weaned calves moving from the farm to the feedlot. But the results of this experiment suggest that calves adapted to a moderate-forage diet before leaving the farm may be better equipped to cope with feed restrictions imposed by marketing and transportation than calves weaned straight off grass, regardless of the receiving diet at the feedlot. It also suggests that regardless of the pre-arrival diet, calves fed a high-forage diet may recover more quickly from feed restriction than calves fed a moderate-forage receiving diet, regardless of what they were eating before they arrived.

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 Yo-Yo diet strategies appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Laboratory tests confirmed malignant catarrhal fever (MCF). The only way known for cattle to get this disease is by ingesting or inhaling ovine (sheep) herpesvirus-2 (OvHV-2) shed in nasal, oral and possibly eye secretions of sheep, or the alcelaphine herpesvirus-1 shed by wildebeest found only in zoos and wildlife parks in North America.

This cow was never near wildebeest and the only time it would have been anywhere close to sheep was at livestock events.

With show season and 4-H events just around the corner, the family urges beef producers to take time to learn about MCF and discuss biosecurity measures with show organizers and at the club level.

“Sure, we know there are health risks whenever we take cattle to shows, but we have vaccinations to protect against those. There is no vaccination for MCF and no cure. That’s why biosecurity is so important — so we can happily exist with sheep and beef. For us, no ribbon, prize or amount of camaraderie is worth the risk if biosecurity isn’t in place.”

The first signs in their cow were puffy eyes and an extremely high fever of around 44 C (38.5 C is normal). As days went by, the eyes gradually turned opaque blue, ulcers developed in the mouth and nose, and swelling in the joints became noticeable. When the virus attacked the nervous system causing erratic eye twitching and loss of balance, they knew it was time to say goodbye.

These are classical signs of MCF. The word “catarrhal” refers to inflammation of mucous membranes. Watery to thickened discharge from the upper respiratory tract, salivation, laboured breathing, ulcerations on the skin and loosening or sloughing of hooves are other signs. Swollen lymph nodes throughout the body are more common in cattle than bison, while diarrhea and bloody urine are more common in bison than cattle.

The disease is usually fatal once signs begin to appear and they become more pronounced and widespread throughout the body the longer the animal survives. Many animals might look depressed for a day or two and then just die without showing any signs.

Cattle appear to have much higher levels of natural resistance to the OvHV-2 virus than bison, which experiments have shown to be 1,000 times more susceptible than cattle, according to Washington State University’s (WSU) MCF website that summarizes findings from global research and disease investigations.

Studies to date indicate many healthy cattle and bison have antibodies for OvHV-2, suggesting that they were exposed and fought off an active infection. Research is looking into the possibility of latent infections becoming active later in life.

One thing research is clear on is that the herpesvirus forms that cause MCF in susceptible animals do not make people sick.

In addition to the MCF viruses carried by sheep and wildebeest, new laboratory tests have identified four other herpesvirus types in other host species that might cause MCF in other susceptible species, one being farmed deer.

An MCF virus usually doesn’t cause disease in its host species, and susceptible species are considered dead-end hosts because they don’t shed the virus.

There is no indication that MCF spreads from bovine to bovine or to other species. The same is true for bison.

Direct face-to-face contact with sheep or with their nasal/respiratory secretions left in water sources, feed bunks, stock trailers and on other equipment are known routes of transmission.

Cool, moist conditions favour survival of the virus and increase the risk of transmission, although it’s unlikely that it would survive more than 48 hours outside the host.

Finally, MCF is not a new disease. Wildebeest-associated MCF was described in Africa some 200 years ago and research began in the early 1900s. Sheep have long been established as a universal reservoir host of the OvHV-2 virus. The first confirmed case of OvHV-2 causing MCF in farmed bison in North America was in the U.S. in 1973.

For as old as this disease is, there are still many unanswered questions. Why is it that cattle and sheep have for many years co-existed on ranches without incidence? Why are there MCF cases when carriers aren’t anywhere near? Airborne transmission over distances of up to five kilometres has been suspected based on observations such as animal density, separation distance and environmental conditions related to outbreaks in bison herds, but could vectors, such as insects, birds or rodents have a role in spreading the virus?

A WSU fact sheet suggests discoveries have been hampered by the difficulty developing a reliable laboratory test for the virus, and the sporadic, unpredictable nature of the disease. The low number of losses in cattle due to this disease also make it a low priority for research funding.

As the bison industry expanded, so too did the economic impact and the MCF research program established at WSU in collaboration with U.S. Agricultural Research Services (ARS) and other institutions in the 1990s.

Overall, research summaries suggest MCF is seriously under-reported either because it is mistaken for another disease, or not investigated because of the cost involved.

The incubation period can be long in a natural setting, maybe 200 days or more. One investigation of an outbreak that ended with 19 deaths among the 132 cattle housed in the same barn as sheep at a state fair in the U.S. reports that the number of days between exposure and clinical signs ranged from 46 to 139 days, averaging 76. Clinical signs appeared on average six days before death but ranged from one to 26 days. The report published in 2010 suggested that fair boards and veterinarians should re-examine biosecurity recommendations for livestock exhibitions.

Biosecurity

According to Alberta and Saskatchewan fact sheets most sheep in North America are assumed to be carriers of MCF, although a Saskatchewan MCF Task Force report in 2011 acknowledged the prevalence in Canadian sheep is basically unknown.

Young lambs at around two months of age start to pick up the OvHV-2 virus from older animals in the flock that are shedding. Shedding appears to be intermittent among individual animals and increases when they are under stress. It has been established that the highest risk time is when lambs are weaned around six to nine months of age and grouping them together concentrates the source.

Processing, transportation, poor nutrition or health in general, and inclement weather are other stressful times believed to be potential risk factors for shedding as well as for susceptible species to develop MCF.

Keeping those risk factors in mind, Dr. Wendy Wilkins, disease surveillance veterinarian with Saskatchewan Agriculture and a member of the Saskatchewan MCF Task Force, says the risk of transmission at shows is low but always present.

The basic biosecurity rule of thumb is to avoid contact between cattle and weaned lambs (up to 11 months of age). The state fair outbreak illustrates the need to house cattle and sheep in separate facilities, and water buckets, feed bunks and other equipment should never be shared.

In most cases, cattle and sheep can be raised together without problems provided a few basic guidelines are followed. Again, keep lambs away from cattle, don’t mix sheep and cattle during times of stress, don’t house sheep and cattle together indoors, don’t pen sheep and cattle together in crowded conditions, and don’t allow access to the same water bowls and feed bunks.

These guidelines should be applied at sales venues as well.

Wilkins adds that producer awareness of MCF is key to implementing appropriate biosecurity measures and knowing when to get your veterinarian involved, not only to confirm MCF, but to rule out foreign animal diseases with similar symptoms.

MCF is not a reportable disease in Canada, however, Alberta and Saskatchewan have made it a notifiable disease for monitoring and information purposes only.

Prairie Diagnostic Services at Saskatoon, the B.C. Animal Health Centre veterinary lab at Abbotsford, and Veterinary Diagnostics Services at Winnipeg, offer testing services, including the PCR test to detect viral DNA.

For more information, contact your local or provincial veterinarian. Saskatchewan Agriculture and Alberta Agriculture websites have brief fact sheets on MCF in cattle and/or bison. More information can also be found on the WSU Veterinary microbiology and pathology website.

The post Malignant catarrhal fever — learn about it; guard against it appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.