Jacqueline Toews, a graduate student in the College of Agriculture and Bioresources, is halfway through a two-year study comparing the costs and benefits of swath grazing barley and swath grazing a polycrop. Toews grew up on a grain farm and commercial cattle operation near Glaslyn, Sask. She recently received a $17,500 scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council for her study.

“Cattle producers are being marketed polycrops as a silver bullet that’s going to fix everything,” Toews said. “It’s very important that we evaluate polycrops from the soil health aspect and look at it from both production and economic standpoints. A shift to polycrops needs to make money to make sense for a producer.”

Toews is comparing a Union Forage Ultimate Annual Blend with 40-10 forage peas to CDC Maverick barley. Dry pregnant beef cows are swath grazing both treatments. Toews and her colleagues are measuring body weight and body condition scores using ultrasound measurements of rib and rump fat on a five-point scale. They are calculating the cost per cow per day for both treatments. Researchers are also measuring forage yield and quality. Quality is measured at swathing, before grazing and at the end of each grazing year.

Toews is also looking at several soil health indicators, including changes in bulk density, moisture, nutrient supply, pH, electroconductivity and soil structure. Soil carbon is being measured through changes in percent of total organic carbon, water soluble organic carbon and nitrogen. Researchers are measuring soil at the start and end of the trial and between years.

Toew’s research is primarily based at the Termuende Research Ranch at Lanigan, but Alan Iwaasa is also conducting the trial at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s research site at Swift Current. The Termuende Research Ranch was formerly known as the Western Beef Development Centre. It’s now part of the University of Saskatchewan’s new Livestock and Forage Centre of Excellence. Toews said the 300-head cow herd will be moved to the Clavet site in 2019.

Toews is also working with U of S beef cattle researcher Bart Lardner, who is the principal investigator, and soil scientist Jeff Schoenau. The Saskatchewan Agriculture Development Fund supports the project as well.

Toews expects to have results publicly available by the fall of 2019. In the meantime, she does have a few preliminary observations.

“Weed management was a significant issue in my polycrop and is an important management consideration for producers wishing to use polycrop mixtures,” she says.

Toews recommends feed testing when using annual polycrop mixes, as her cows needed energy supplementation in extremely cold weather.

Toews also notes the industry needs more multi-year studies on annual polycrop mixtures. She’d like to see more research looking at the whole system, including the interactions between soil, plants, cattle and economics.

Once published, Toews’ research will be one of the first peer-reviewed studies in Western Canada examining the effects of grazing polycrops.

The post Polycrop grazing goes under the microscope appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

On April 1, 2018, the Western Beef Development Centre, a division of the Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute (PAMI), rolled into the University of Saskatchewan’s Livestock and Forage Centre of Excellence (LFCE).WBDC now goes by the name of the Forage and Cow-Calf Research and Teaching Unit (FCCRTU). Although the name has changed, the unit is continuing and expanding the forage research, education and extension work that WBDC has been doing for the past 20 years. All the staff and researchers crossed over to become University of Saskatchewan employees with the exception of general manager Jim Wasserman, who is an employee of PAMI.

New facilities at Clavet

Besides some upgrades to the University of Saskatchewan’s 2,000-acre Goodale Research and Teaching Farm site, state-of-the-art facilities are being built south of Clavet, including a new 1,500-head feedlot for the Beef Cattle Research and Teaching Unit, with double the capacity of the former feedlot in Saskatoon.

Across the road from the feedlot, the construction of a new home for the Forage Cow-Calf Research and Teaching Unit should be completed in fall 2018. The 300-female breeding herd will not relocate until fall 2019, and will remain at the Termuende Research Ranch near Lanigan, which will still be used until current grazing research projects are completed in 2020.

Interim director Kathy Larson says the new LFCE offers a “pasture to plate” focus, facilitating collaboration between all the different researchers and allowing better integration of various trials.

“Having new facilities literally across the road from each other makes collaboration a lot more seamless,” she says. “We have a forage plot for the forage breeders right nearby, so they’ll be developing new varieties that we’re then seeding and assessing with grazing preference trials and ability to overwinter on a field scale. We can also see how those forages are being digested with the metabolism barn and cannulated animals. What makes this facility special is that we can tie in researchers from a variety of disciplines and focus areas — forage development, reproductive physiology, environmental sustainability, genetics, herd health, animal behaviour, feedlot management, nutrition, cow-calf management and pasture management, to name a few.”

Larson says the new Clavet location, just 20 minutes outside of Saskatoon, is also more convenient for researchers and students. “Students can quickly commute from campus to their research plots or trial pens, and they have the option to stay and work in the 12-carrel student room at the BCRTU or return to campus for classes.”

Updated technology

There is also some updated technology for the laboratory facilities at the Beef Cattle Research and Teaching Unit and a 24-stall metabolism barn that will allow researchers to do additional work in gut and rumen research.

GrowSafe feed bunks have been installed in pens at the BCRTU which allow the measuring of individual animal intakes, as well as a GrowSafe Beef watering station in one 200-head pen that can estimate weights and health status of animals when they come for a drink.

“When an animal goes up to drink water, it has to step onto a platform that reads their ID tag and takes a weight as it drinks,” says Larson. “It then does a calculation using the front half of the animal’s weight to estimate the animal’s overall weight. We can now measure gain without having to run animals through a chute every time.”

Behavioural scientist Dr. Diego Moya joined the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in January, and additional animal behaviour-monitoring equipment is being installed to assist with his research.

Connecting with producers

Connecting with producers is an essential part of LCFE’s role, says Larson.

“It’s important to make sure that the research we’re doing is relevant and applicable plus we need to share the results with producers. We can’t be anywhere in the beef industry without forages and that’s why it’s front and centre in our Livestock and Forage Centre of Excellence. Throughout a beef animal’s life, it is consuming forages.”

Larson says outreach is a huge part of what the facility is designed to do. “There’s more room where the cattle are handled and bleachers have been added because we want to host events, such as the feedlot management school,” says Larson. “The space has been configured for the side demonstrations and training of students.”

Expanded forage research

New forages are being established this year at the new lands south of Clavet so that grazing trials can begin in 2019. They will include a four-year study into novel mixtures of annual and perennial forages. The aim is to determine effects on biomass and nutritive value, pasture water cycle dynamics, soil nutrients and sequestration, GHG emissions and system economics. The second, two-year trial will evaluate new perennial forage cultivars for biomass, quality, persistence and carbohydrate reserves under high-stock-density grazing.

There are a number of continuing beef and forage trials at Lanigan, led by Dr. Bart Lardner of the University of Saskatchewan, which will be completed by 2020. A two-year study is evaluating extended forages in conventional versus non-conventional (with no cattle implants or antibiotics) backgrounding programs. Lanigan is also the site of a two-year study evaluating forage yield and quality, soil nutrients, grazing capacity and the economics of polycrop mixtures compared to barley swath grazing.

A three-year study at the site is looking at novel binary (grass-legume) mixtures managed during late summer and early fall for forage biomass and quality, botanical composition, grazing animal performance and system economics. The other three-year study at Lanigan is evaluating sod-seeded non-bloat legumes. Early results indicate addition of legumes in existing pastures contributes to increased biomass, forage quality and steer performance.

Lardner’s team has just finished a three-year study evaluating DNA parentage testing in multi-sire breeding programs. Results show tremendous variability between which bulls are contributing to the calf crop each year. The study found some sires were giving 54 calves, while another bull in the same breeding group only had one calf.

“We are starting a second applied genomic study in 2018, evaluating not only parentage testing, but also bull behaviour and repeatability, and finally whether the calves are expressing the desirable performance traits passed on from the high genetic merit sire,” says Lardner.

This article was originally published in the 2018 issue of the Forage & Grassland Guide.

The post New name and facilities for Western Beef Development Centre appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The Beef Cattle Research Council’s (BCRC) recent webinar on Preventing Reproductive Wrecks served as an important reminder that the reproductive capacity of beef herds remains paramount to economic prosperity in cow-calf herds. In the words of Dr. Dan Posey, Texas A and M University, “Reproductive efficiency expressed in economic terms is 10 times more important than weaning weight, and 20 times more important economically than carcass attributes.”

The math is quite simple: a herd that produces more calves per exposed female increases revenues by selling more calves. The average cow herd in Western Canada goes into fall with 93 per cent of the cows pregnant (seven per cent open), loses between four and seven per cent of calves born alive in the spring with an average weaning percentage of 85 per cent (calves weaned versus cows exposed the previous breeding season). Maximizing herd reproductive efficiency should be the primary goal of all beef producers.

In a nutshell, four critically important management practices that improve reproductive efficiency include:

1. Breeding soundness evaluations on all bulls every year.
2. Pregnancy examination and removal of all non-producers.
3. Maintenance of moderate body condition scores at calving.
4. The hidden values of vaccinations against reproductive diseases (IBR, BVD and campylobacter or vibrio).

A major study involving 205 herds and 33,000 beef cows from the beginning of the breeding season in 2001 through pregnancy testing in 2002 from across Western Canada identified herd management and cow characteristics associated with the reproductive success of participating cow-calf herds. The study team measured breeding management and cow-level risk factors such as age, body condition score (BCS) and previous reproductive history.

A second study, championed by the Western Beef Development Centre (WBDC) between 2014 and 2015 involved approximately 400 herds and with the information gathered established production benchmarks capable of being used by producers to measure individual herd performance against industry averages. The WBDC study also examined linkages between production and profit by examining factors like cow herd costs, pounds of calf weaned, conception rates, open rates, percent of calves born in the first 21 days, length of calving season, calving rate and calf death losses.

Observations made from the two studies include:

• About 60 per cent of producers pregnancy check cows; approximately 66 per cent check heifers.
• Approximately 64 per cent of producers conduct bull semen evaluations.
• 11 per cent of producers utilize estrus synchronization and 18 per cent artificial insemination in reproductive management schemes.
• Failure to conceive and early pregnancy failure were the primary causes for reduction in net calf crop.
• Commonly employed herd management practices include controlling the length of the breeding season, minimizing bio­security risks, vaccination, and optimal nutrition.
• Shorter breeding seasons have been associated with decreased costs and improved productivity.
• The use of community pastures during the breeding season is a common challenge to biosecurity in many herds and can be linked to reduced reproductive performance because of increased exposure to disease (IBR, BVDV, trichomoniasis, vibrio).
• Vaccines can be used to help manage biosecurity risks for some pathogens. In experimental studies, vaccines against bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) have been shown to protect against abortion and fetal infection.
• The most commonly used measure of nutritional management is body condition score (BCS).
• Dystocia and the degree and timing of assistance at calving have been associated with increased interval from calving to estrus and decreased conception rate in cows.
• Body condition scores less than 2.5 before calving, together with a subsequent decrease in BCS before breeding, explained the third-highest amount of variation in pregnancy status. The highest predicted probability of non-pregnancy was observed in cows that were thin before calving and lost condition afterward.
• Herds commingled during summer grazing have been shown to have higher calf mortality rates.
• Adequate body condition at calving and controlled weight loss immediately after calving are critical to optimize fall pregnancy rates.
• Blood samples indicate that up to 46 per cent of cows in Western Canada may be copper deficient. Cows with blood copper levels below 0.4 ppm prior to breeding are at increased risk of not becoming pregnant, particularly young cows less than four years of age. This suggests a need for field research on the use and effectiveness of trace mineral supplementation programs to improve fertility of beef cows.
• Nutrition is probably the most important factor that influences cow fertility. Cows deficient in energy (indicated by body condition) or trace minerals preferentially partition these nutrients to maintenance rather than reproduction.
• An optimal cow body condition score (2.5 out of five) encourages calving ease, produces higher-quality colostrum; sustains adequate milk production, and ensures relatively prompt rebreeding.
• The majority of beef herds in Canada continue to use bulls to breed females, and are therefore susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases. The most commonly reported venereal diseases of cattle include trich and vibrio. Although both diseases occur infrequently, results of infection can be quite devastating.
• As the first step toward improving reproductive efficiency, make sure to use a fertile bull. Though a fertile bull is important, he is of little use to a cow that is not cycling. The 90:90 rule of thumb assumes that 90 per cent of all cows calve and 90 per cent of these calves wean, so the average producer can expect a weaned calf crop of 81 per cent. If the weaned calf crop were to be reduced by another six per cent because the bull was not fertility tested, the producer now has a 75 per cent weaned calf crop. Using a bull that has been examined for breeding soundness could add six per cent to the average weaned calf crop of 81 per cent, resulting in a weaning percentage of approximately 87 per cent, or an estimated return of $20 for every $1 spent on semen evaluation.

The post Preventing reproductive wrecks in cow-calf operations appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The Livestock and Forage Centre of Excellence (LFCE) is a partnership between cattle producers, the Province of Saskatchewan, the federal government and the University of Saskatchewan that is designed to foster innovative research, training and outreach. The centre is currently being constructed in three phases on land near Clavet, Sask. Phase 1 involves construction of the Beef Cattle Research and Teaching Unit (BCRTU) which includes a 1,500 head intensive feeding facility and a 24 head metabolism facility. Phase 2 involves moving the 350 beef cows from the Western Beef Development Centre at Lanigan, Sask., to land and facilities adjacent to the BCRTU. Construction on Phase 1 and 2 is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2018. Phase 3 involves renovations to the Western College of Veterinary Medicine’s Goodale Research Facility, which focuses on reproductive studies in beef cattle as well as equine and native hoof stock research. The LFCE will be a laboratory for Canadian and international scientists that will allow them to focus on emerging issues related to health, nutrition, genetics, public safety and plant breeding as well as on environmental issues facing the industry. Most importantly, it is designed to break down barriers between academics and beef producers, and between colleges and academic units in order to bring scientists from across disciplines together to promote an integrated approach to solving industry issues.

So where does A&W fit? First, let’s state the obvious — many beef producers in this country are, to say the least, furious with A&W’s beef commercials. I would count myself in this group. However, as I indicate above, when you talk with A&W corporate personnel, you very quickly get an appreciation that first and foremost they are committed to their customers, and second, they are committed to serving great Canadian-sourced food whether that is beef, pork or poultry. Through discussions leading to this donation, it was very evident that this company wants to facilitate the growth of the entire Canadian beef sector, and more importantly, to promote this growth by ensuring consumer confidence in Canadian beef. Their message was clear — a healthy Canadian beef industry is good for business for producers and retailers alike! It was also evident that this company knows its customers and does a great deal of research to keep abreast of consumer attitudes, an area of research that unfortunately has not seen a lot of industry funding.

Evidence of A&W’s commitment to all-Canadian beef is evident when you look closely at the terms of their donation; $3 million will be directed towards construction of the Livestock and Food Research Building which houses the metabolism wing. This building will be at the heart of basic and applied digestive physiology, nutrition and health-related research. Our concept when designing this facility was that basic research conducted in this facility will transfer to small- and large-pen studies involving industry partners that, in turn, will provide proof of concept as well as commercial viability of the research. Further, $1 million will go to creation of a visiting scholarship in “one health” research. This research bridges human, animal and ecosystem health and could include holistic approaches (human and veterinary medicine) to antibiotic resistance, vaccine development, food safety, beef quality and environmental stewardship, all critical issues to the Canadian public. Finally, $1 million will be directed to outreach — development of innovative methods to transfer research results and novel technology to beef and forage producers in a manner that will enhance uptake.

In addition to their funding, A&W will also bring one other critical piece of the puzzle to this multifaceted approach to beef and forage research: that being the fact that they have direct consumer contact and knowledge of purchasing decisions. It is great to have producer and government input into research programs at publicly funded institutions; however, if we don’t consider and react to consumer demand, then we will always be one step away from achieving industry’s goal of having Canadian beef globally recognized for its superior quality and trusted for its wholesomeness. With A&W and other industry partners, we will have this input at the LFCE.

So, you decide — sleeping with the devil or a new beginning? Personally, I am looking at this as a new beginning that enhances and focuses our research to the betterment of the Canadian beef industry and who knows, perhaps we will even see new commercials as this partnership unfolds!

The post Sleeping with the devil or a new beginning – you choose appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

“Producers need to be aware of their end goals for the polyculture because production and improving soil are very different objectives,” says Dr. Mike Schellenberg, a range and forage plant ecologist at Agriculture Canada’s Swift Current Research and Development Centre where he and Dr. Jillian Bainard have completed several polyculture trials.

Given that most research on the use of polyculture crops is from humid eastern regions of the U.S. and Canada, they set out to learn whether the benefits seen in those parts actually do occur in the drier Prairie region.

The initial project evaluated the performance of monocultures and polycultures with up to 12 annual species from four functional groups: warm-season grasses (corn, millet, sorghum), cool-season grasses (barley, oat, triticale), legumes (field pea, forage pea, hairy vetch), and brassicas (kale, forage radish, purple-top turnip). Each crop treatment was planted in early June on its same plot three years in a row and meadow brome-alfalfa was grown as the traditional mix for comparison. No fertilizers and pesticides for weed, disease or insect control were used in any year, and approximately 98 per cent of the crop was removed for greenfeed each August.

The change in organic carbon was measured by looking at the percentage of water-stable aggregates (clumps of soil that don’t fall apart in water) in each plot at the start and end of the project. Organic carbon is an important energy source for soil micro-organisms so they can carry out their nutrient cycling role. All of the polyculture plots and the barley monoculture plot gained organic carbon, without rotating crop treatments or leaving much residue behind and under very dry conditions in 2015.

Thus, if you hope to improve the soil, Schellenberg suggests choosing species with the greatest potential to benefit the soil more than the cattle, and leave plenty of plant material behind to feed the soil and protect the surface from erosion.

Alternatively, grazing livestock will leave some nutrients behind in manure and urine and their hooves provide some tillage action to work plant material into the soil surface to speed nutrient recycling.

It’s important to follow up with soil tests to know whether your choice of species is meeting the mark, he adds.

If your goal is production, yield and quality as cattle feed would be priorities. Their work showed that crop biomass was highly correlated with the number of species and functional groups in the mix. Biomass was highest the first year and dropped significantly in each of the next two years, partly due to dry conditions, but mainly because of dwindling soil nitrate levels resulting from the removal of nutrients in the form of plant material each harvest and not replenishing them with annual applications of nitrogen. Soil phosphate, potassium, iron, calcium and copper levels didn’t change much over the three years in any of the plots.

Plots with the least decline in soil nitrates were those sown to mixes that included legumes to fix atmospheric nitrogen and those with brassicas because they accumulate nitrates in plant tissues.

As a followup to evaluate implications for the subsequent annual crop, barley was planted on all of the plots and production was very poor due to the shortage of soil nitrates.

The initial trial showed that forage quality can be maintained or improved by planting mixtures. The combination of acid detergent fibre, neutral detergent fibre, and crude protein were the measures of quality. Overall quality of the mixes was not as high as some of the species on their own, but was higher than many single species offered.

Schellenberg reminds producers to consider perennial forage mixtures if they want a cover crop on the same piece of land for more than a year. Perennials still have a decided advantage over annual mixes because they are already established to take advantage of early-spring moisture and get a jump on weeds.

Equally as important as selecting species for a purpose is choosing varieties adapted to your growing area. They tested most species that producers have been growing in the semi-arid region and found nine provided most of the production. Kale and sorghum didn’t establish and grow well in any of the three years, whereas, hairy vetch performed very well as a high-quality forage while its nitrogen-fixing action benefitted the soil.

Pending funding approval, their next step will be to dig deeper into the proportion of species in mixtures best suited for achieving production and, or soil-building goals in the prairie region. They also see a need for longer-term projects to pull out details and identify cumulative effects in dry soil zones and test mixes and strategies to mitigate plant disease issues.

Diseased plant residues and inoculum left in soils can set the stage for a large-scale outbreak in a susceptible field crop or even another polyculture crop of the same species grown on that field the following year, he explains.

Sclerotinia-infected brassicas in a polyculture, for example, could be a reservoir of infection for disease in a canola crop if environmental conditions are conducive.

Insect pests aren’t commonly a problem in polyculture crops because a good mix of species from the four functional groups makes it difficult for insects to find their host of choice.

Schellenberg says the potential to control weeds is a very promising aspect of polyculture cropping. The more functional groups and more species included in the mix, the better it is for weed control, although the trend was less apparent under dry conditions that limited production and weed growth.

The weed control likely stems from the polyculture species out-competing the weeds for nutrients and space at several levels below and above ground. The shading effect under the canopy that prevents light from reaching the weeds is an important feature, he says.

Additionally, some crops, such as triticale, radish and turnip, and the perennial, western wheatgrass, have an allelopathic effect on other plants. The roots of these plants exude chemicals that harm the growth and development of nearby plants, and it is most often aimed at specific plants. Western wheatgrass, for instance, has an allelopathic effect on dandelion, but not alfalfa and other grasses.

In a followup two-year weed control trial, they found planting single species with differing characteristics in alternating rows didn’t control weeds quite as well as sowing all the species together in rows. Once again, the numbers of functional groups and species were the most important variables.

The bottom line, to date, is that having goals and a strategy for use of polycultures as part of a cropping or grazing system as a whole are very important because what goes into the mix and how the crop is managed can have positive or negative implications for the next crop.

A two-year swath grazing study is measuring the effect of a polycrop mix compared to a conventional annual forage on soil health, beef cattle performance, grazing capacity, and grazing system economics. The conventional forage is Maverick barley and the polycrop is 4010 peas with Union Forage’s Ultimate Blend (hairy vetch, Crusader Italian ryegrass, sorghum, crimson clover, Winfred forage brassica, Hunter forage turnip, Graza forage radish). The sites in the semi-arid brown soil region at Swift Current Research and Development Centre and in the parkland region at the Western Beef Development Centre were planted in June this year for October swath grazing with the schedule to be repeated next year and results expected in late 2018.

The post Seeking plants with polyculture potential appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

If you have skinny or poor condition cows heading into winter, that December to March period is probably one of the toughest and most expensive times to try to get them back into condition, say researchers and ranchers alike. And if they are on the poorer side heading into calving, then calving difficulties can increase resulting in weaker and low vigour calves. After that, the costs and management mount trying to get those mothers back into condition for the approaching breeding season. This is particularly an issue for first- and second-calf heifers, that themselves are still growing, never mind trying to meet the requirements of a new nursing calf. Cattle are in a catch-up position and it’s very difficult to get caught up.

While there has been plenty of research done over the years, and there are still many questions to be answered, the take-home message is to have cows and heifers in a good body condition score (BCS) heading into winter. If you use the actual scoring system — the five-point Canadian BCS system recommends cattle be in the 2.5 to 3 score range, and on the nine-point American BCS it’s about five. There are several good websites that demonstrate proper techniques for condition scoring.

And even if you don’t do the hands-on, palpated type of body condition scoring, just having a good look at cattle this fall on pasture will provide a good visual assessment of whether some remedial feeding action is needed. If you are relying on a visual scoring, however, make sure a heavy hair coat on animals isn’t providing misinformation.

Low condition, high cost

The economic impact of heading into winter, calving and next year’s breeding season with cattle in low to poor condition is considerable. Some U.S. research comparing cattle with the mid-range (recommended) body condition score versus a low body condition score, showed the mid-range cattle had 10 per cent more live calves, calf weaning weights the next fall were 26 per cent higher, and the pregnancy rate among mid-condition cows came in at 92 per cent versus 79 per cent for lower condition females.

Research at the University of Alberta’s Ellerslie research station from a few years ago showed it costs more to feed low condition cattle over winter. To move a condition score from two to a three requires about 200 pounds of gain for a 1,450-pound cow, 240 pounds of gain for the same change in an 1,800-pound cow or about 160 pounds of gain for a 1,200-pound cow. On a cost basis, at the time of that study, feeding that lower condition animal to gain 200 pounds cost 42 to 85 cents more per head per day than a good condition cow. Again, that research found it took 20 days longer for the thin cows to come into estrus at breeding time and conception rates were 20 per cent lower. If cows drop even one condition score (go from a BCS of 3 to 2) over winter, the calf crop is reduced by 30 to 35 per cent the following year. Each loss carries a price tag.

So how do you manage against that?

The fall is the most economical time to get cattle into proper condition heading into winter, says Hushton Block, a researcher with Agriculture and AgriFood Canada in Lacombe, Alta. Block, a specialist in beef cattle nutrition and growth, says at weaning the cow’s nutrient requirement is about at the lowest point in its production cycle. The calf is weaned and the bred cow (expected to calve in March) is several months away from calving.

“Even low- to moderate-quality pasture or hay will pretty well maintain an animal at this time of year,” says Block. “So providing some good-quality hay, or some screenings or a bit of grain will start to put weight on animals.” The actual supplement used should be based on a feed analyses for deficiencies in the base diet and least-cost nutrient formulation.

Block’s approach is to put weight on cattle — improve body condition score — when it is easiest and at the least cost. “Winter is the most expensive feeding period of the year,” says Block. “So it’s not the time to be trying to put weight on cattle. Summer and fall pasture is the least expensive. Feed costs are relatively low and it is the easiest time for the cow to put on weight.”

He suggests there “might be some economic advantage” for producers to aim at bringing cows and heifers into good, perhaps even slightly over condition, heading into winter and then if feed supplies and quality are limited over winter, the animal can afford to lose a bit of condition. It’s a fine line. “The cow still needs to be in good or proper condition for calving and through to breeding,” he says. “But if she comes into winter in top condition there might be some room for her to lose just a bit of condition and still be able to deliver a calf and rebreed.” It may help to trim over winter feeding costs.

Properly managed, he says the cow’s condition can dip a bit over the winter feeding period, and then when lower-cost spring, summer and fall pasture comes along, put the condition back on.

“The overall objective is have cows in a good body condition score so they can calve, rebreed and stay in the herd,” says Block.

Extended grazing needs to be managed

But maintaining cows and heifers at a body condition score of about 2.5 to 3 over winter — so they can calve and later recover to rebreed — doesn’t mean producers have to avoid extended grazing systems, says Bart Lardner, senior research scientist at the Western Beef Development Centre (WBDC) in Saskatchewan.

“Sure the risk is there that cattle can lose condition on swath, bale grazing and other winter feeding systems,” he says. “But it is also quite manageable. You have to apply the proper management, but there is no reason these systems can’t work, maintain cattle in good body condition and, in fact, we have seen situations where they actually gain weight while winter grazing.”

Lardner says the first step, whether it be with barley, oats, triticale swaths, for example, bale grazing or corn grazing, is to have a feed test analysis completed before cattle start grazing, so producers know if there are any limiting quality factors.

“If you don’t trust the quality of that feed stuff, then you could be in a deficient position,” says Lardner. “So have it tested.” Many forages saved for winter feed might look good but they could be low on protein, or they could be low on energy, which is particularly important heading into those coldest days of winter, he says. So know your feed quality and be prepared to provide a supplement if key nutrients are lacking.

He says also remember cows and heifers need to be on a higher plane of nutrition during the last trimester of pregnancy. “If you have different qualities of stockpiled feed put them on the lower-quality feed, such as straw or chaff, earlier in the winter grazing period and then switch them over to higher-quality feed as they approach calving.

He also recommends first- and second-calf heifers be fed separately from mature cows. Those heifers have higher nutrient requirements than mature cows so it is important their winter feed is meeting those requirements. “Sometimes producers will manage those replacement heifers really well from weaning until the time they are bred, and as soon as they have that first calf they get moved into and managed with the cow herd,” says Lardner. “But that heifer herself is still growing so has higher feed requirements. She needs to be managed properly right through until that second calving. Producers have a lot invested in these heifers and they need to be managed properly.”

Lardner did caution against babying replacement and first-calf heifers in a drylot with high-quality feed. He says don’t be afraid to put them out on swath or corn grazing or bale grazing with supplements as needed. They can do very well with a well-balanced swath grazing ration, and then become very efficient animals later in the cow herd.

In WBDC research, studies have evaluated all types of extended fall and winter grazing systems. They found cattle did well on all systems, noting in some trials they actually gained weight on winter corn grazing. Producers need to watch as corn protein levels can be low. A low-protein feed can be a concern during the coldest stretches of winter grazing, especially as the pregnant cow nears calving. “Again, it is the importance of a feed test to know the protein and energy density of the feed stuff whether it be corn or a cereal swath,” he says. A good mineral supplement should also be provided through the entire year.

In a recent WBDC winter grazing trial, with good-quality feeds, two groups of mature cows did equally well on barley swath grazing and corn grazing compared to a third group fed in a dry lot.

Cows in all three systems were able to maintain a body condition score in the 2.6 to 2.7 range. “Any negative effects on cow reproduction (pregnancy rate) occurs only when the BCS drops below 2.5 during the pre-calving and pre-breeding periods,” says Lardner.

The Beef Cattle Research Council has good information as well as videos explaining and showing the proper technique for body condition scoring on its website.

The post Get cows and heifers ready for winter now appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

This is why ranchers may confine heifers after weaning and push them to gain more than they would on winter pastures. Some ranchers keep more heifers than they need and then make selections the following spring regarding which ones to breed. Other ranchers raise heifers on pasture or range (feeding hay and supplement) and don’t confine them, feeling that those heifers stay fitter and healthier and make better cows, even though they don’t grow as fast as intensively fed heifers. The genetics of many cow herds have changed; some stockmen have selected for more efficient animals that can do well without grain, needing less expensive inputs for growth and production.

“The increase in cost of fossil fuel and feedstuffs, and capital investment, makes us look at rate and pattern of gain when developing heifers,” says Lardner. Today we have cattle that can do well without being pushed so much. There has been a lot of research in this area, since the concern has been that puberty would be delayed if heifers were raised with a lower rate of gain and lower per cent of mature body rate at breeding. Some of the earlier work was all about insuring that they would reach puberty and breed on time, but there has also been some work to see if there was an alternative, such as developing them to less than 65 per cent mature body rate. Studies were done looking at developing heifers to 60 per cent or maybe even just 55 per cent of mature weight as the lower end.”

“Success with this is all about genetics. British breeds might be better fit for this lower per cent than some of the continental breeds. We’ve looked at the possibility that there might not be a negative effect on reproductive efficiency — not just as a first-calver but also for the life span of that cow in the herd,” he says.

Some ranchers have developed cattle that fit their ranch environment and can thrive on the grazing resources the ranch provides, without expensive inputs during the development period, the 200 days from October-November until breeding in June or whenever breeding starts.

“Recent work at the research centre at Miles City, Montana, has evaluated developing heifers to lower weights, studying reproduction impacts and economics. Dr. Rick Funston at North Platte, Nebraska, has also evaluated heifers developed grazing winter range or residues. We put together a development program here in Saskatchewan, looking at two rates of gain for developing heifers — moderate versus high, and an extensive grazing program versus a drylot feeding program. We called these groups moderate gain in extensive grazing, high gain in extensive grazing, moderate gain in drylot and high-gain drylot,” he says.

“We wanted to expose replacement heifers to a system they would be managed in for longevity — in an extensive system where they have to go find the feed versus having it brought to them in a bunk or pen. They have to go out and graze, winter well, and then cycle during breeding season and give the producer a calf,” he says. Most ranchers want heifers that can utilize crop residues, stockpiled winter range, standing corn, or whatever the ranch can grow cheaply for winter feed.

“So we looked at the two systems and moderate versus high rate of gain and followed them through to their third calf. This gives us a better idea about whether the development system impacts reproductive longevity of the heifer. Most of the research programs simply followed heifers up to their first pregnancy diagnosis but not beyond. We followed them farther, to see their retention rates within the herd. Whatever system we develop heifers in should be for longevity and not just making sure the heifers can breed as yearlings,” he says.

“During the development program that first winter, before breeding, we had some heifers on a typical high-roughage diet — a grass/legume hay — and bale grazing. Being grown in a winter environment they needed a little extra energy, but the largest part of their diet was good-quality hay, with a little cereal grain for supplement. The moderate-gain group gained about 1.2 pounds per day. The high-gain group averaged a little over 1.5 pounds per day. At weaning, they were all about 565 pounds. The heifers with moderate gains came out at about 780, and the high-gain group weighed about 870 just before breeding,” says Lardner.

“If you go for the lower per cent of mature body weight, such as 55 versus 65 per cent, make sure the breeding pasture has good-quality forage. We saw that those few lighter-weight heifers that had not yet reached puberty coming out of winter did reach puberty during breeding season, started cycling, and did become pregnant. So if pasture quality is adequate, they do catch up,” he says.

He recommends weighing cattle to know the actual average mature body weight. Don’t guess. Know if your mature cows, five years old and above, average 1,200 pounds, 1,400 pounds, or whatever. If you use a targeted rate of gain for heifers, you need to know the mature weight.

“In that first year, with moderate-gain heifers we saw compensatory gain during breeding season. Those heifers only gained about 1.2 pounds during winter but gained about two pounds a day during breeding season and caught up. By contrast the high-gain group had static growth at about 1.5 pounds during breeding season.” They had already put on the weight they needed.

“There was no difference in first pregnancy rate; both groups ended up with similar rates of 85 to 90 per cent pregnancy rate. Then we followed them through the next couple years. The heifers with moderate gains caught up with the others by second calving and were similar as mature cows. We looked at three years of retention in the herd, comparing how they were developed. The heifers from each of the four systems were all similar; each group had about 77 per cent retention in the herd, based on normal culling practices.” Thus the moderate-gain heifers were just as able to stay in the herd as the ones with higher gain during development.

Input costs keep going up, in terms of infrastructure, fuel, feed, etc. “The difference between our groups of extensive moderate gains and drylot high-gains group was about $60 per head development costs for the first 200 days after weaning. You don’t want to cut development costs too much, if it will be detrimental and have a negative effect on the heifers,” he says.

You want to optimize a development program, without having to spend more than you need to. “A program shooting for 55 per cent mature weight won’t work everywhere. You might want to aim for 60 per cent of mature weight to fit your environment and winter. Some areas are tougher in winter, and some areas the summers are tougher; forage nutrition is more challenging during summer.” In some situations you might need to have heifers coming out of winter with a little more growth.

The second winter, when heifers are pregnant, it is important they be in adequate body condition before calving. “The six weeks prior to calving, make sure to meet their protein and energy requirements. We wintered bred heifers on a swath graze program and knew the quality of the annual cereal hay they were grazing. This extensive grazing system was cost-saving, but six weeks before they started calving we checked feed quality and gave them a little supplement in the form of a range pellet — just to make sure they were in good body condition. We didn’t want them to drop below optimum condition.”

On the other hand it is also important to not overfeed heifers as they approach calving. You don’t want them to get too fat or put too much into fetal growth at that time or there may be calving problems. “You simply give them every chance to calve with the least difficulty and hopefully come back and rebreed,” Lardner explains.

“Continue to pay attention through their second year regarding the way they are fed, to get them rebred for their second calving. That’s the next big challenge. Some operations have a lot of focus on that first breeding season but then just put the first calf heifers in with the older cows. They tend not to rebreed because they can’t compete with older cows for feed,” says Lardner.

They are still growing, so they should be kept separate from the older cows in winter so they have adequate feed for growth and can rebreed.

The post Winter management for replacement heifers appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

When the last two siblings of the Termuende family remaining in Canada, Randy and Frieda, retired from farming in 1964, the family farm near Lanigan was entrusted to the University of Saskatchewan for agricultural research.

The university managed the Termuende land until 1998 when the WBDC was established as a partnership between the university, province, and beef and forage producers to continue the research program at the farm. Since 2005 it has operated as a division of the Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute.

New research projects will begin at the LFCE next spring as research underway at the WBDC winds down through 2020. Starting next April the 1,920-acre Termuende ranch and the affiliated 960-acre Pathlow pasture will operate as satellite locations for the LFCE.

LFCE project manager Dorothy Murrell says construction of the beef cattle research and teaching unit is slated for completion on March 31, 2018. The building and feedlot on 48 acres replaces the university’s old research feedlot now nearly encircled by the city, and will run research programs in animal genetics, health and welfare, engineering, and environmental (soil and water) monitoring.

Construction of buildings and pens for the forage and cow-calf research and teaching centre will begin this month on 37 acres with another 100 acres of turnout pasture. Another 40 acres will be dedicated to forage breeding and plots for annual and perennial forage variety testing.

Most of the remaining 11 quarters of the LFCE site will be used for feed production and manure disposal.

Discussions continue on how to best integrate the research efforts at the LFCE with the Western College of Veterinary Medicine’s research conducted at the university’s Goodale Research Farm near Floral.

Fact sheets summarizing the 20 years of research conducted at the WBDC and 41 YouTube videos covering some of the findings are available at www.wbdc.sk.ca.

The post Western Beef Development Centre on the move appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

During BSE, drastic times called for drastic measures, and input costs were often cut as much as possible. But this may not be the best strategy for today’s more normal conditions. If it’s not done carefully, reducing inputs can harm profitability.

Feed is responsible for the biggest costs, including land, fuel, seed, and fertilizer to establish, grow, manage and graze or harvest pasture or winter feed. Investments to increase forage and feed yield and/or quality, through appropriate pasture management (e.g. intensive or rotational grazing), agronomy (e.g. crop and variety selection, seeding dates, fertilization, weed control practices and harvest dates) can help reduce land base requirements by greatly increasing carrying capacity. Growing more forage per acre means that fewer acres are needed for each cow, or that more cow-calf pairs can be raised on the same land base.

Using feed and forage resources as efficiently as possible through extended grazing (where appropriate), feed testing and appropriate supplementation are other examples where increased costs in one area are offset by lower overall costs. Feed requirements are higher in extended grazing systems, partly because cows need more feed when wintered on pasture than when they are fed in confinement, but overall cost per cow per day ends up lower in many cases due to labour, equipment and fuel savings. But even here, feed cost savings with poorly managed extended winter grazing can result in lower overall profitability if the cow’s nutritional requirements are not met. Reducing feed costs needs to be balanced with ensuring that the cow still receives the nutrition she needs to get through the winter in good body condition, give birth to a live, healthy calf, provide it with high-quality colostrum, and wean it at an acceptable weight, all while rebreeding within 60 days of calving to maintain a 365-day calving interval. If standing forage, swath or bale quality is lower than assumed and cows lose body condition during the winter, they may enter the calving season in thin condition, have more trouble calving, rebreed later, and wean lighter calves next year. This is a particular concern with first-calf heifers and young cows that are still growing while they are pregnant and raising their calves, so their nutritional requirements are particularly high. Failing to meet the cows’ nutritional requirements will greatly increase the risk that they will rebreed late or not at all, and increase the chances that they will be culled long before the calves they weaned have covered their purchase or development costs. Spending money on a feed test, and using that information to appropriately supplement protein, energy and minerals will help avoid that risk.

On top of this, there are genetic differences between animals; some cows can winter on less feed than others while still maintaining body condition and rebreeding successfully. Sometimes these may be smaller cows that wean smaller calves that may be discounted in the marketplace. But there are some cattle that really do digest and metabolize their feed more efficiently than others. This means that two cows of the same breed and size may maintain their body weight and condition equally well, and raise and wean similarly sized calves year after year, but with one needing considerably more feed per year than the other. In time, genetic tools may become refined enough to accurately identify these differences in commercial cows.

You can hear more about this at the Bov-Innovation session at the 2017 Canadian Beef Industry Conference in Calgary (August 15-17). Bov-Innovation will again feature talks from researchers, paired with beef producers, presenting some basics as well as the latest science-based recommendations and practical production tips on a range of topics. Presenters will include Matt Spangler (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) speaking about genomic selection tools for commercial herds. John McKinnon (University of Saskatchewan) will talk about economical ways to deal with mycotoxin-contaminated feed grain. The Western Beef Development Centre’s Kathy Larson will discuss economic considerations when selecting replacement heifers alongside a speaker (to be announced) who will talk about the critical animal health and nutritional management considerations essential to achieving a 365-day calving interval. We hope to see you there!

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 Making dollars out of sense appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Chris White is the new president and CEO of the Canadian Meat Council. He comes to the council with 20 years experience in government and industry relations as chief of staff for five federal cabinet ministers and vice-president of government relations in the finance, insurance, and auto sectors. The Canadian Meat Council represents 400 federally inspected meat processing establishments with annual sales of $28 billion, including exports of $6.1 billion, and 66,000 jobs making it the largest component of this country’s food processing sector.

Grant Zalinko has been promoted to the position of executive director of the livestock branch in the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. He was previously the manager of the livestock development unit and chiefly responsible for the development and updating of the ministry’s livestock strategy. He and his wife also manage a small commercial cattle operation near Rouleau.

Garner Deobald of Hodgeville, Sask., has been re-elected president of the Canadian Beef Breeds Council. Joining him on the board are vice-president Roger Peters from Red Deer, and new directors Jay Cross, David Sibbald, and Tessa Verbeek from Calgary, and Reed Rigney from Westlock, Alta.

Bruce Holmquist of Saskatoon is the new president of the Canadian Western Agribition, an organization he has been involved with as a volunteer and executive member for the past 40 years. He is also the general manager of the Canadian Simmental Association. Joining him on the executive are: vice-president Chris Lee from Arcola, past president Stewart Stone of Regina and directors at large Kim Hextall of Grenfell, Ross Macdonald from Lake Alma and Bryce Thompson of Regina.

David Sibbald is the new president and chairman of the board of the Calgary Stampede. He is also the current president of the Canadian Angus Association and will continue to fill that role until the conclusion of the CAA annual meeting in Brandon on June 10. His term as president of the Stampede board runs until 2019.

Cattlemen Tim Oleksyn and George Cooper were inducted into the Saskatchewan Agricultural Hall of Fame at the Western Development Museum in Saskatoon on April 22, 2017.

Tim Oleksyn, a rancher and farmer from Shellbrook has been a supporter of beef research for decades. He has been a board member and chair of the Western Beef Development Centre and the Beef Cattle Research Council and served on the board of the Saskatchewan Agriculture Development Fund, Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute and the new Livestock and Forage Centre of Excellence (LFCE). He is currently on the fundraising committee to secure the remaining funds needed to make the LFCE a reality.

George Cooper of West Bend served on the boards of the Canadian Shorthorn Association, Saskatchewan Livestock Association and Canadian Western Agribition, and was president of the Regina Bull Sale. He passed away in August 2016.

Also inducted were Art Mainil a founding member of the Palliser Wheat Growers Association and founding president of the Weyburn Inland Terminal, soil researcher Bob McKercher, seed grower and community advocate Donna Edwards, and biotech researcher Wilf Keller.

Alberta Farm Animal Care (AFAC) presented three Awards of Distinction during the recent Livestock Care Conference in Leduc to recognize individuals or groups that have made exceptional contributions to farm animal care in Alberta.

The Communication Award was presented to Alberta Beef Quality Starts Here, a non-profit, industry-supported organization that has operated as the provincial delivery agent for the Verified Beef Production (VBP) program since 2003. In 2016 the agency had to step up its training and communication activities to include three new modules addressing animal care, stewardship and biosecurity under the VBP Plus (VBP+) program.

The Award for Industry Leadership was presented to Jackie Wepruk, a founder and current general manager of the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC). The NFACC has facilitated the development of updated codes of practice for the care and handling of different livestock species in Canada, and the development of animal care assessment programs.

The Award for Innovation was presented to veterinarian and long-time farm animal care advocate Dr. Merle Olson, for his tireless efforts in the research, development and commercialization of economical pharmaceutical options for pain management and parasite control in livestock. As vice-president of research and development at Solvet Dr. Olson developed Meloxicam Oral Suspension — a new product for cattle available at www.afac.ab.ca.

Dr. Donald E. Buckingham has been named CEO of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, an Ottawa-based independent non-profit research organization that develops policy options for the agricultural and agri-food sectors. Buckingham is currently chair of the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal. His new position is effective July 1, 2017.

The Verified Beef Production Plus (VBP+) program has officially launched a new website, which offers a single-stop comprehensive resource for all matters related to VBP+. It can be found online at verifiedbeefproductionplus.ca.

The post New president for Canadian Meat Council, new inductees for Sask. Agricultural Hall of Fame appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.