Make informed decisions for your operation with information delivered right to your inbox.
Get the latest tools, innovations and science-based information for the Canadian beef industry, including seasonal production considerations and economic analyses.
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, the BCRC’s Science Director, originally appeared in the July 2026 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Microbes are everywhere, all the time. Your body contains around 30 trillion human cells, and even more microbial cells. The breath you just took probably inhaled a few microbes—more than a few if you’re around other people, pets or livestock. That means microbes are circulating in packing plants, too. Most microbes are harmless, but some can shorten the shelf-life of beef, and a few (like Shiga-toxin producing E. coli or STEC) can cause food poisoning.
Beef is an excellent nutrient source for people. It’s also an excellent nutrient source for microbes. If microbes establish themselves on conveyor belts and other processing equipment, they have a ready food source to support their growth. As a result, Canadian packing plants work very, very hard to keep their facilities clean and their beef products safe. Facilities are cleaned after each shift. They start by scraping away visible contamination, then pressure washing the conveyor belts, equipment and floors (Step 1). In Step 2, a detergent is applied to break down fat residues, then rinsed off. Finally, a sanitizer is applied to kill microbes that may not have been washed off (Step 3).
In collaboration with a major beef packing plant, the team collected samples from conveyor belts, floor drains and air before cleaning started, after Step 1 (pressure washing), after Step 2 (detergent) and after Step 3 (sanitizing). Bacteria were counted and identified in each sample.
What They Learned
At all time points, there were fewer bacteria in the air and conveyor belt samples than from the drain samples. This makes sense—gravity leads wash water and bacteria to the drain.
Bacterial numbers changed as cleaning progressed through Steps 1 through 3, but not in the way you might expect. Bacterial numbers in the drain samples were high before cleaning started and after the initial scraping and power-washing step. This isn’t surprising—large numbers of bacteria from the equipment and floor were being washed down the drain. But bacterial numbers on the conveyor belts were higher after Step 1 than before cleaning started! The same thing happened with bacterial numbers in the air samples after Step 1. This helps explain what happened. Anyone who’s ever used a pressure washer (or put their thumb over the end of a hose) to clean anything knows that water pressure loosens and removes stuck-on grime and dirt. But it also creates mist. That mist isn’t just water; it also carries fine particles of grime, dirt and—you guessed it—bacteria. The pressure-washing step dislodged some bacteria from the belts and drains and launched it into the air. The equipment undoubtedly looked cleaner after Step 1, but as the mist settled, bacteria from the air re-contaminated the conveyor belts. Thankfully, bacterial numbers dropped back to pre-cleaning levels after the detergent had been applied and rinsed off (Step 2) and remained low after the sanitizer was applied (Step 3).
The good news is that the cleaning steps were most effective against bacteria (like Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter) which can cause spoilage and shorten the shelf-life of packaged beef. Most importantly, numbers of E. coli on the conveyor belts dropped continuously as cleaning progressed through Steps 1 to 3. In fact, a lot of conveyor belt samples didn’t contain any E. coli at all, and it wasn’t found in any of the air samples. Further, fewer than half of the floor drain samples contained E. coli. This included all E. coli, not just the Shiga-toxin producing E. coli (STEC) that pose a human health concern. There are hundreds of strains of E. coli; STEC would have been a very small fraction of the very few E. coli they found here.
What Does This Mean To You?
Canadian beef packers clean their plants very effectively. Food safety records support this. In 2025, there were 263 food recalls in Canada. Six of these recalls (2.3%) involved beef, and only two (0.8%) were for microbial contamination. These were both STEC, but neither was associated with human illness, and both implicated a grocery store, not a beef packing plant.
Future research may be able to develop improved methods of pressure washing that minimize the numbers of microbes that enter the air and land on the equipment again. But this is very risky research for commercial packers to do—they are hesitant to experiment with new cleaning methods until they’re confident that they won’t accidentally make things worse. That sort of research, development and demonstration work needs to be done in a pilot-scale research facility before industry will adopt it.
Bottom Line
Dr. Yang was relocated to the Lethbridge research station to continue her microbiology research when AAFC made it research cuts in January. We’re grateful that AAFC recognized the importance of the work she does. But the Lacombe research abattoir is currently slated to close. That will make it extremely difficult for any potential new food safety knowledge coming out of her lab to turn into commercial practices that make Canadian beef—and its consumers—safer.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the June 2026 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Legumes are the most economical way grazers can increase pasture and cattle productivity (provided bloat risk is managed by using low-bloat species or varieties, anti-bloat agents, adjusting grazing timing, or the use of mixed legume-grass stands). Alfalfa has received the most breeding focus and is the most common and productive legume available. Canadian cattle producers need winter-hardy alfalfa that yields well and withstands grazing pressure. It’s difficult to put these three traits together in the same variety.
Everything starts getting ready for winter as fall approaches and days get shorter. Squirrels cache nuts. Bears gorge on berries. Calves are weaned, feed supplies and quality are evaluated, and pregnant cows and heifers are split into winter feeding groups based on age and body condition score. My father-in-law recruits us to help split and haul firewood up to the woodshed. These activities are all about making sure there’s enough energy to get through the winter and early spring.
Alfalfa does this too. Alfalfa begins to go dormant as fall approaches. It switches from using photosynthesis to power above-ground forage growth to storing sugar in the roots. Dormancy ratings range from 1 to 11 and refer to how much fall regrowth can be expected. Varieties with a lower fall dormancy rating number (more dormant) regrow less than varieties with a higher rating (more regrowth). Fall dormancy supports winter survival but reduces forage yield.
Winter survival ratings range from 1 (extremely winter-hardy) to 6 (non-winter-hardy). Grazing tolerance also plays a role in this. Grazing alfalfa during the critical fall adaptation period removes the leaves that drive photosynthesis and replenish the root system’s winter energy stores.
They studied 25 different yellow- and purple-flowered Canadian alfalfas with fall dormancy ratings below 3 (very dormant). These were established varieties, cultivars under development, and specific strains that had been collected from pastures that had been seeded decades ago. They evaluated genetic relationships among the alfalfas. They established plots in Normandin, Quebec and Lacombe, Alberta, in 2016 and evaluated fall dormancy and winter survival in 2017 through 2019. Eighteen alfalfas were seeded in 2019 and 2020 for grazing trials at Lacombe. They were grazed in 2021 through 2023, and forage yield and survival were assessed in 2024.
What They Learned
Genetic relationships. The yellow-flowered, creeping rooted alfalfa varieties and the tap-rooted purple varieties fell into two genetically distinct clusters. The yellow alfalfas fell into two genetic clusters based on whether they were diploid (two sets of chromosomes) or tetraploid (four sets of chromosomes). The purple varieties were all tetraploid but grouped into three genetic clusters that corresponded to slight differences in fall dormancy (regrowth) ratings.
Winter survival across all genetic types was higher in Lacombe (75 to 95% survival after three years) than in Normandin (66 to 81%). In Lacombe, survival tended to be lower in the least dormant (92% survival in 2017, 78% in 2018, 75% in 2019) than in the most dormant group of purple alfalfas (95, 93, and 91%). Diploid yellow alfalfa tended to have higher survival (96, 96, and 95%) than tetraploid yellow alfalfa (98, 88, and 83%). In Normandin, winter survival did not differ among the purple alfalfas in 2017 (96 to 99%) or 2018 (88 to 96%), but the least dormant group tended to have lower survival in 2019 (66% vs. 73 to 77%). Diploid and tetraploid yellow alfalfa had identical survival rates (98% in 2017, 93% in 2018, 81% in 2019).
Fall dormancy. Even though all 25 varieties were rated as very dormant, the different genetic groups tended to differ in their fall regrowth. This was related to winter survival—yields decline when fewer plants survive. Among the purple-flowered alfalfas, regrowth yield tended to be lower among the groups with lower fall dormancy ratings, as expected. Among the yellow-flowered alfalfas, the diploid group were more dormant (less regrowth) than the tetraploid group. Trends were similar between Lacombe and Normandin. Overall, the range in fall dormancies overlapped among the purple (1.0 to 2.3) and yellow (0.9 to 2.4) alfalfas.
Yield and grazing tolerance were reported for 11 individual cultivars/populations. Two alfalfas were both the highest yielding and the most grazing tolerant. But they were very different plants. Yellowhead is a creeping rooted, tetraploid, yellow-flowered alfalfa. The other was a tap-rooted, purple-flowered strain that was growing in a field in northwest Alberta. Yellow-flowered alfalfas are often thought to be better suited for northern climates, but that’s not always the case.
More research is needed to continue to test the up-and-coming varieties for fall dormancy, grazing tolerance and winter survival, compare these alfalfas to commercially available varieties, assess whether they can compete in mixed grass stands and how they perform in different regions, etc.
What Does This Mean To You?
This project isn’t completed, but it is over. AAFC eliminated the Quebec City and Lacombe research stations, their forage programs and these research teams in January.
Bottom Line
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has registered 31 new alfalfa varieties in Canada since 2022, but they were all developed in the U.S., at locations 312 to 1,200 km south of Normandin and 715 to 1,611 km south of Lacombe. Those varieties weren’t tested in this study but may not have performed too well this far north. Large multinational breeding companies focus their breeding efforts on their largest markets, not on developing high yielding, winter-hardy varieties for small regional markets like Canada. If these AAFC researchers aren’t relocated, the University of Saskatchewan will be Canada’s only perennial forage variety development program. It’s beginning to look like Canada’s cattle and forage producers will be in for some long, cold winters.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.BeefResearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the May 2026 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Ribeye or striploin steaks are almost always the costliest proteins in the store or on the menu, so it’s important that these high value cuts provide a predictable and excellent eating experience for the consumer, every time. Canada’s A, AA, AAA and Prime beef quality grades are based on marbling. Marbling score is a quick, easy and inexpensive way to estimate the amount of intramuscular fat within the ribeye muscle itself.
Generally, the more marbling there is, the juicier and more tender the steak will be. But a high marbling score alone can’t guarantee a great eating experience—a lot of other factors like protein structure characteristics and collagen content also influence beef tenderness. The problem is that directly measuring beef tenderness means sacrificing a steak so that it can be cooked and subjected to “shear force” measurements in the lab or fed to an expert taste panel. Those options are too costly, time-consuming and impractical to use in commercial practice.
A new option to evaluate beef tenderness may come from the world of cancer medicine. The “iKnife” uses a laser to cut out tumors. It resembles a wood burning kit connected to a long thin tube leading to an analytical device. As the iKnife cuts around a tumor, the “smoke” exhausts through the tube leading to a rapid evaporative ionization mass spectrometer (REIMS) that assesses what types of tissue are being cut through. If cancer cells are detected, the cut should be moved further out to make sure that the entire tumor is removed. This technology may also be able to analyze the exhaust gas to identify individual protein markers related to beef toughness or tenderness. The really good news is that iKnife technology is rapid, can be used on raw beef and only leaves small scorch marks on the steak—but the steak would still be completely edible afterwards.
The team collected 1,497 AA and 1,356 AAA striploin steaks from packing plants in Alberta and Ontario. Each steak was used for iKnife and REIMS testing (uncooked) and shear force tests (after cooking). Biochemical samples were collected from a subset of steaks before they were cooked.
What They Learned
Are AAA steaks more tender than AA steaks? Yes. Shear force testing found that the average AAA steak was more tender than the average AA steak. But there was a tremendous overlap between the two grades. Many AAA steaks were tougher than some AA steaks, and a lot of AA steaks were more tender than some AAA steaks. Marbling does not guarantee tenderness.
Can REIMS differentiate between tender and tough steaks? Yes. When the steaks were split into groups of “extremely tough,” “tough,” “average,” “tender” and “very tender” categories based on their shear force measurements, the REIMS results could accurately identify over 99% of the steaks that were in the “tough” and “extremely tough” categories.
What is REIMS measuring? Some of the metabolites detected in the exhaust gases are known to be strongly associated with beef tenderness. For example, sarcomere length is a measure of how contracted or flexed a muscle is. Shorter (more contracted) sarcomeres lead to tougher beef. Certain REIMS signals were strongly associated with sarcomere length. Other REIMS signals were associated with collagen (connective tissue) content that is related to toughness, and other signals were related to forms of muscle proteins that are released as meat ages and tenderizes. This suggests that the signals the REIMS technology measures are not random—they are reliably related to factors that are known to be linked with beef eating quality. This technology appears to be quite promising. Down the road, it may provide a way to incorporate a tenderness evaluation into Canada’s grading system.
The BCRC funded this research in the U.S. because REIMS technology was not available in Canada. The federal government’s recent closure of the Lacombe research facility created a major gap in beef quality and food safety research in Canada. With no active beef carcass research program remaining in Canada, we will have to rely on international research that may not be completely relevant to our system. Canada’s beef industry is working hard to save the expertise, equipment and data from the Lacombe facility and re-establish it at a Canadian university.
What Does This Mean To You?
Canada’s cattle producers and processors compete with imported beef in the Canadian market and with beef from other countries in export markets. Investing in research to continually improve the eating quality of Canadian beef supports consumer confidence and our industry’s international competitiveness.
Bottom Line
Finding ways to demonstrate that the eating quality of Canadian beef is predictably excellent strengthens our reputation with consumers here and around the world. Our industry depends on consumers’ continued willingness to buy beef. When they pay generously for a high-quality steak, they deserve to get one, and our industry can’t afford to disappoint them.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the April 2026 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Ranchers get frustrated when their efforts to improve forage yields and quality don’t benefit their cattle, because the neighborhood deer move in instead. But more wildlife may simply be moving in because there are fewer natural areas for them to live.
Imagine what happens when a river floods. Water seeks the easiest path, so it follows the riverbed. Higher ground remains exposed and dry. Bystanders gather on the riverbank to watch the driftwood float by. The water rises, eventually spilling over the riverbank and onto the surrounding floodplain. Cautious people leave the area. Others climb for a higher vantage point. Floodwaters begin to climb the valley walls. More people leave, but determined spectators climb to the top of the valley. High ridges along the top of the river valley remain exposed and connected. Eventually the rising water surrounds the high points, floods the lower spots connecting them and isolates the peaks from each other. This leaves small islands, overcrowded with sightseers questioning their decisions, checking their cell reception and scanning for helicopters.
A similar thing is happening with rangeland biodiversity. A growing global population is increasing the demand for food. Biofuel incentives support crop prices. Provided there’s enough sunshine and moisture, high prices make it tempting to cultivate marginal grassland to grow cash crops, and favorable crop insurance programs may make this look like a safe risk. As cultivated acreage expands, wildlife habitat shrinks. If too much forage and pastureland is converted to crops, the remaining islands of grass will be too small and disconnected from each other to support a functioning grassland ecosystem.
They examined Alberta’s six natural regions – the Grasslands region in the south, the forested Boreal region in the north, the Parkland in the middle, Foothills and Rocky Mountains on the west and the Canadian Shield in the Northeast. Most pasture and cattle production occur in the Grasslands, Parkland and Foothills regions. The Canadian Land Suitability Rating System rates land based on its potential to raise small grains and oilseeds. Classes 1, 2 and 3 are the most productive. Land classes 6 and 7 simply aren’t suitable for farming. The research team modeled how biodiversity might be affected if the tame and native pastureland on class 2, 3, 4 and 5 land was cultivated for crop production.
What They Learned
A lot of tame pasture and grassland (and wildlife habitat) has already been lost, but it could still get worse.
Grassland region: Nearly 85% of the original connectivity in the Grassland region still remains (compared to before cultivated agriculture started in Alberta). If future cultivation was expanded to swallow up class 2, 3, 4 and 5 land, 66% of the remaining grassland would be lost and about 50% of the original connectivity would remain. This could have serious negative implications for grassland biodiversity. Some of the remaining corridors would allow for wildlife movement to neighboring regions. For instance, remaining grassland corridors would still enable some movement of biodiversity to the Cypress Hills, Foothills or Parkland regions. But it would be a long walk for a burrowing owl.
Parkland region: Higher rainfall grows trees, and this supports different types of biodiversity. Due to clearing and farming, about 55% of the original connectivity still remains in the Parkland region. If cultivation expanded to include all the remaining class 2, 3, 4 and 5 land in the Parkland, 87% of the remaining grassland would be lost and about 40% of the original connectivity would remain. Some of the corridors would remain intact enough to allow wildlife to move north to the Boreal region or south to the Grassland region.
Foothills region: Substantial connectivity still remains in the Foothills region, likely because it has absorbed some of the biodiversity squeezed out the Grassland region. For example, grizzlies, elk and wolves used to be common throughout the Grasslands, but today they’re mostly found in the Foothills or Rocky Mountains. Nearly 80% of the grassland remaining in the Foothills region would be lost if the remaining class 2, 3, 4 and 5 land was cultivated, and connectivity would be squeezed further. Some of the corridors in the neighboring Rocky Mountain or Grasslands regions would remain intact.
What Does This Mean to You?
Regardless of where you raise cattle in Canada, cultivation (along with urban sprawl, industrial development, highways, reservoirs, solar farms and other hallmarks of progress not considered in this study) threatens grasslands, connectivity and biodiversity. Keeping land in grass and cattle is a nature-based solution to biodiversity loss and helps to ensure ecosystem intactness.
Bottom Line
A pasture can be cultivated in hours, but it takes years to re-establish one. Canada’s beef producers play a vital role in preserving Canada’s natural spaces, providing key habitat and travel corridors connecting healthy populations and ecosystems. Happy Earth Day.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.BeefResearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Water Stewardship: A Ranching Family’s Approach to Conservation and Changing Landscapes 🎙️
Nestled in the arid South Okanagan, Thomas Ranches is a multigenerational operation that balances ranching with conservation. In 2000, the Thomas family sold their land to The Nature Trust of British Columbia, preserving natural habitat while continuing cattle operations under a lease agreement. Today, Brian Thomas manages 200 head of cattle on 350 acres, with the remaining 1,650 acres dedicated to wildlife habitat. Effective water management is crucial to sustaining both livestock and the surrounding ecosystem in this dry region.
Cattle on Crown rangeland. Photos courtesy of Brian Thomas.
Cattle on Thomas Ranches in the South Okanagan, BC
Thomas Ranches relies on a creek-fed storage dam and an extensive irrigation system. This helps them manage water shortages in a dry climate that gets less than a foot of annual rainfall. Frequent droughts have intensified competition for water resources, and the impacts of increasing population growth, tourism and conservation efforts place additional demands on an already limited supply.
Wildfires also pose ongoing risks. A wildfire in 2021 burned nearly half the ranch’s land. However, the resulting reduction in tree cover ultimately increased water availability by reducing vegetation uptake.
Wildlife protection adds complexity, as the ranch’s rugged terrain supports species like California bighorn sheep, elk and mule deer, necessitating careful water stewardship. Despite scrutiny of agricultural water use, Brian underscores that broader water use by humans is a major driver of water shortages, not cattle consumption. This reinforces the need for proactive water management to ensure long-term sustainability. These pressures have shaped Brian’s mindset, strengthening his focus on planning, advocacy and preparedness.
Water Storage and Distribution
The ranch’s storage dam, originally built in 1943 and expanded over the years, is vital for maintaining water availability throughout the year. The earthen embankment dam creates a reservoir that collects and holds water during wetter periods, like during spring snowmelt or heavy rainfall. The stored water can then be used during drier months. Additionally, springs and roadside ditches provide secondary water sources for cattle on Crown rangeland where cattle graze from May to October.
To reduce irrigation water waste, the ranch has transitioned from above-ground aluminum pipes to underground PVC pipelines, significantly lowering water loss through leaks and evaporation. Additionally, pivot irrigation systems are replacing older hand-line and reel irrigators, further improving efficiency. These improvements have significantly reduced overall water consumption, which helps ensure the cattle have the water they need, even in drier periods.
This practical water analysis guide for beef producers outlines key questions and considerations to support decision-making around different watering solutions for cattle.
Off-Stream Watering Systems
Historically, cattle drank directly from creeks, but all riparian areas on the ranch are now fenced off to protect the watercourses from contamination and erosion. Instead, water is delivered via underground gravity-fed pipes to troughs, ensuring a consistent supply while protecting water quality. This change was supported by federal and provincial funding through the Species at Risk program, benefiting both cattle and local wildlife. Additionally, this practice enhances the ranch’s image, as the public appreciates seeing natural water sources protected.
A storage dam is the primary water source for Thomas Ranches.
Water Access and Security
The ranch holds historic water licenses dating back to the 1870s, ensuring legal access to water from McLean Creek and the storage dam. However, regulatory challenges persist, particularly regarding water rights in British Columbia, with concerns about stock water rights on Crown land.
The BC Cattlemen’s Association is advocating for improved stock water regulations to provide greater security for ranchers, ensuring reliable water sources for their cattle. In collaboration with industry groups, Brian is actively involved in discussions about policies that recognize the importance of agricultural water use and support cattle health and productivity.
Key Water Management Takeaways
Plan for Drought: Water storage infrastructure is essential during dry periods.
Protect Natural Water Sources: Fencing off creeks and utilizing off-stream water systems improves water quality for both cattle and wildlife.
Monitor and Adapt to Changing Conditions: Wildfires, drought and increasing human activity require continuous adjustments to water management strategies.
Work Collaboratively: By working together, beef cattle producers can ensure their water needs are understood and considered in provincial planning.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following individuals for contributing their time and expertise to review this article and related resources:
Dr. Mary-Jane Orr, General Manager, Manitoba Beef & Forage Initiatives
Dwayne Summach, Livestock and Feed Extension Specialist, Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture
Jaclyn Horenburg, Producer Relations Specialist, Beef Farmers of Ontario
Geoff Larkin, Climate Change Adaptation Coordinator, Agri-Commodity Management Association
Kaley Segboer-Edge, VBP+ Coordinator and ABP Stewardship Lead, Alberta Beef Producers
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Solving Problems Starts with Asking the Right Questions 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the March 2026 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Diseases start when a susceptible calf encounters the wrong combination of microbes, weather and management stresses. With respiratory disease (pneumonia), viruses infect the upper respiratory tract and allow bacteria to infect the lower respiratory tract. Protecting calves against the initial viral infection is key to reducing the risk of pneumonia. This can be tricky with newborn calves because maternal antibodies from the colostrum can interfere with and inactivate injectable vaccines. Intranasal and oral vaccines are more effective in newborns because they stimulate a different part of the immune system.
Pneumonia is usually associated with viruses like BHV-1, BPIV-3, BRSV, BVDV1 and BVDV2. In contrast, bovine coronavirus is usually associated with scours. But researchers have begun to suspect that bovine coronavirus may also be involved in BRD. Dr. Nathan Erickson and colleagues at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon worked with a consulting veterinary practice and one of their large commercial clients in north-central Alberta to assess whether a bovine coronavirus vaccine would help protect pre-weaned calves against pneumonia (“Comparison of pre-weaning BRD treatment rates between non-vaccinated control and variably primed and boosted beef calves using commercially available bovine coronavirus vaccines,” Canadian Veterinary Journal).
What They Did
The ranch had a long calving season (mid-February through May) and a history of pre-weaning pneumonia. In earlier years, diagnostic tests run on nasal samples from sick calves detected coronavirus more often than other viruses. So this team designed a trial to see whether adding a coronavirus vaccine to the calf health program would help deal with the pneumonia problem.
Within a day of birth, nearly 900 calves from the same calf crop were given intranasal Inforce 3 (against BHV1, BRSV and PI3). At the same time, half the calves were also given Calfguard, an oral vaccine against scours caused by coronavirus and rotavirus that they delivered intranasally in this study. Using Calfguard intranasally is an extra label use, so it’s important to talk to your veterinarian before trying this on your own calves. The other half of the calves weren’t given Calfguard. Cow-calf pairs with similar calving dates were penned together until booster vaccinations were given at roughly 49 days of age.
All calves were boostered with Pyramid FP5 + Presponse (BHV1, BRSV, PI3, BVD types 1 & 2 and Mannheimia) and given Vision 8 somnus (eight-way clostridial vaccine with Histophilus). Calves that had been given Calfguard at birth earlier were boostered with Calfguard (by injection) but the other half of the calves weren’t. Then all pairs were turned into a larger quarter-section field where calf health was monitored until they were moved to summer pasture. Weaning weights were collected and economics were compared between the calves that had received the coronavirus vaccine at birth and spring processing and those that hadn’t.
What They Learned
Effect of calving period: Just over a quarter of the calves were born in the first three weeks of the calving period, 42% during the second three weeks and 29% were born later. Before the calves went to pasture, pneumonia treatment rates were higher (25%) among calves born during the second three weeks than for calves born in the first three weeks (16%) or calves born at the end (12%).
Pneumonia before turnout: While the pairs were in the group pens, pneumonia treatment rates were significantly lower for calves that had been vaccinated against coronavirus (16%) than for calves that hadn’t (21%). Mortality rates were also lower for calves that had been vaccinated against coronavirus, especially among the calves born during the second three weeks of the calving season that experienced the most pneumonia. In that second cycle, 0.5% of the calves that had been vaccinated against coronavirus died, compared to 2.6% of calves that weren’t. The previous column explained how a short calving season helps reduce newborn death loss.
Pneumonia after turnout:To make sure that pneumonia relapses didn’t muddy these results, the comparison of differences in post-turnout pneumonia only included calves that had not been treated for pneumonia in the group pens. After calves were turned into the larger field, 4.5% of the calves that were vaccinated against coronavirus were treated for pneumonia compared to 7.2% of the calves that weren’t. This difference was nearly statistically significant.
Economics: Calves that had been vaccinated against coronavirus weighed 4.5 lbs more than those that weren’t. Per-head vaccination costs were $27.60 higher for calves that had been vaccinated against coronavirus because of the added vaccine costs ($10.60) and labor ($17) associated with the two doses of the Calfguard vaccine. On the other hand, calves that had been vaccinated against coronavirus had lower treatment costs ($2.31 vs. $3.18) and a higher weaning rate (98.5% vs. 97.7%) than those that hadn’t been. Putting all this together with their heavier weaning weights, calves vaccinated against coronavirus netted $10.50 per head more than the calves that hadn’t been.
What Does This Mean to You?
Even if you don’t usually have a problem with scours, vaccinating against bovine coronavirus may complement other calfhood vaccines and give an added level of protection against pneumonia in suckling calves. Herds with coronavirus associated pneumonia in their suckling calves might benefit from vaccination against coronavirus.
The Bottom Line
An effective vaccine program returns more than it costs. Also, use the experts you have. You’re the expert on what’s going on in your herd. Work with your veterinarian’s expertise to develop, refine and troubleshoot a vaccination program that suits your herd and your situation. When they’re stumped, they probably know a researcher who can help.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.BeefResearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Extend the Grazing Season: Using Stockpiled Forage for Early Spring Grazing 🎙️
Grazing early in the season (April and May) reduces reliance on stored feed and allows beef producers to make the most of stockpiled perennial forage resources. According to the 2025 Canadian Cow-Calf Adoption Rates and Performance Levels Report, up to 61% of Canadian producers winter cattle in pastures for all or part of the winter. For those producers not using confined feeding during this time, early-season grazing provides a transition from winter grazing or feeding to spring and summer grazing.
Early-season grazing isn’t about moving from pen to pasture; it’s about strategically managing cool-season grasses to balance nutrition, regrowth potential and pasture longevity. With the right timing, species selection and rest strategies, producers can take advantage of stockpiled forage and cool-season tame grasses to start off the grazing season before warm-season or native forages are ready.
“Every bale of hay we don’t feed is money we keep in our pocket,” says Brian Harper, who manages a cow-calf and yearling operation near Brandon, Manitoba. Besides the feed cost savings, “our cows are healthier, they’re on pasture year-round, and we haven’t had any feet or digestive issues. The exercise and consistent high-quality nutrition really pay off.”
Leah Rodvang, a cow-calf producer from east central Alberta, agrees about the economic and animal health benefits, adding, “Early-season grazing is an important management tool during May calving to reduce the risk of scours in newborn calves.”
Rest periods are critical during early spring grazing. Because plants initiate growth during this period, grazing plans need to include adequate rest to allow for plant recovery and regrowth. Providing sufficient rest increases both above and below ground plant biomass, carbohydrates and growth rates when compared to plants grazed without a recovery period. Brian follows a rule of leaving 20% of his acres ungrazed each season to rest completely and begins grazing on this stockpiled forage the next spring. “Stockpiled forage is essential,” Brian says. For him, planning in advance and moving daily have supported grazing from when the snow melts until it is too deep to dig through.
During early-season grazing, cattle remove critical leaf matter during Phase 1 of plant growth, when plants are especially vulnerable (Figure 1). At this point, the plant is relying heavily on root resources for growth and removing leaves during grazing reduces the leaf area available for photosynthesis. Managing grazing for lower plant utilization leaves more leaf area to photosynthesize and puts less stress on the plant roots. Extended rest periods provide additional time for the plants to both grow above ground and return nutrients to the roots. Without rest, desirable grazing plants lose their competitive advantage, leading to encroachment of undesirable or invasive plant species.
Figure 1. Standard Growth Curve of Forages
Producers can utilize a skim grazing strategy, moving cattle through the pasture system at a very rapid rate with a utilization rate lower than 50%. This allows only the very tips of the leaves to be defoliated, enabling the plant to continue photosynthesis with the remaining parts of the leaves. The rate at which producers will have to move from pasture to pasture will depend on the size of their pastures and herd, ranging from a few hours to a few days. “During early-season grazing, we rely on stockpiled forages from previous seasons. However, once the grass starts growing, we want to manage carefully to ensure that the grasses have enough leaf to continue photosynthesizing,” Leah says. “Estimating a 50% forage utilization is a comfortable management strategy for us.”
Brian also relies on stockpiled forage for early-season grazing. However, his grazing system looks different. Grazing acres are split into thirds: the grazing season acres, the buffer zone and stockpile. “We graze as much as 80%, but we balance that off with a longer rest period. Rainfall and timing of grazing impact the length of the rest period.” During the growing season, the grazing season acres are grazed multiple times. If the grazing season acres are not sufficient, cattle move to the buffer zone acres to allow rest and recovery before returning to the grazing season acres when plants are in Phase 2 (Figure 1). The stockpile section is given a full season of rest and used for early spring grazing, before and during spring growth.
How To Plan for Early-Season Grazing
“Planning is critical,” says Leah. Early-season grazing depends on stockpiled forages and requires planning during the prior growing season to ensure adequate forage availability. Depending on regional weather conditions, pastures may be grazed the previous season and left with time to regrow prior to winter, or the pasture may require an entire season of rest.
Regardless of location or system, a key principle of grazing management is to rotate the timing of pasture use each year. Begin the grazing season in a different pasture each spring and vary the schedule annually across paddocks. Develop and follow a grazing plan to ensure pastures are used within their capacity for recovery.
Choose pastures for early-season grazing based on location and species type. Locations with high, dry points and harder soils are ideal, as grazing these first will reduce cattle damage to plants and soil. Use tame pasture with early growing plants for April and May grazing. “On our ranch, the primary tame forage is crested wheatgrass,” says Leah. “The earlier we can use these pastures, the better, as crested wheatgrass is less attractive to the cows after mid-July. This also leaves our native pastures for later-season grazing.” Crested wheatgrass, a tame forage, begins growing early in the year and can maintain growth after early grazing (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Relative Yield / Period of Growth of Native Grass and Seeded Pastures
Depending on the level of stockpiled forage, supplemental protein, energy, minerals or vitamins may be needed to ensure cattle nutritional requirements are met.
“We use second-cut alfalfa hay to boost protein so the cows can use up the fibre from the stockpile,” Brian explains. “Once the grass comes on strong, they transition to just grazing.”
How and when supplementation is provided may also affect how pastures are rotated for grazing, another important part of the planning process. Sample standing forage and send for a feed test evaluation to ensure your cattle’s nutritional needs are met. If using early-season grazing as part of your calving management strategy, your cows are at the point in their production cycle with the highest nutrient requirements. Stockpiled forage without supplementation will not provide adequate nutrition.
Throughout the early grazing period, monitor cattle, pastures and new growth and adjust your plan as needed. Cattle condition should be evaluated as an indicator that cattle are receiving adequate nutrients. Monitor when grass begins to grow in addition to the stockpiled forage. When early-season grazing is finished and cattle are moved to pastures with little or no stockpiled forage, ensure grasses in these pastures are at the three-leaf stage of growth or later.
For producers wanting to try early grazing, Leah recommends starting with just one pasture.
“Test it on a field you can watch closely, rotate quickly and make sure you have good water access.” She advises. “It’s about learning how much to take, how fast to move and how much to leave behind for regrowth.”
Continue to monitor these pastures throughout the remainder of the grazing season to assess pasture recovery and regrowth. These observations can be used to plan for the upcoming year.
Final Thoughts
Early-season grazing offers significant advantages when managed carefully. By understanding the growth patterns and rest needs of cool-season grasses, cattle producers can reduce feed costs, maintain pasture productivity and set the stage for a successful grazing season. While grasses are tough, they thrive with rest. Timing, species choice and rotation are the building blocks for productive, sustainable early grazing systems.
Kowalenko, B., Romo, J.T. 1998. Regrowth and rest requirements of northern wheatgrass following defoliation. Journal of Range Management, 51 (1) 73-78.
Romo, J.T., Harrison, T. 1999. Regrowth of crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum [L.] Gaertn.) following defoliation. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 79, 557-563.
McCartney, D. 2011. To Rest or Not Rest, That’s the Question! Canadian Cattleman.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the February 2026 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Last month’s column laid out some of the recommended practices that 11 large-scale research studies said were the most effective for reducing pre-weaning death loss in beef calves worldwide. Over half of those research studies had been done in Canada, but only three of those Canadian studies had been done in the past 20 years. Canada’s a huge place, and herd sizes and calving dates have shifted over the past two decades. So, which calving practices work best for Canadian cow-calf producers in 2026?
Claire Windeyer of ACER Consulting and coworkers from the University of Calgary and Western College of Veterinary Medicine surveyed producers participating in the Canadian Cow-Calf Surveillance Network (C3SN) to identify on-farm practices that reduced the risk of scours, pneumonia and mortality outbreaks in Canadian beef calves (Benchmarking management practices that impact calf morbidity and mortality in Canadian beef cow-calf herds; (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106725).
What They Did
Producers participating in the C3SN (84 from BC and the Prairies and 41 from Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes) responded to a survey. Producers were asked if they had experienced an outbreak of pre-weaning calf scours or pneumonia (at least 5% of calves treated) or mortality (at least 5% of calves died) within the past three years. Answers to additional questions regarding herd management practices were compared between those who had experienced one or more outbreaks and producers who had not.
What They Learned
Outbreaks were equally common in both western and eastern Canada. Of the 125 producers surveyed, 24% reported a scours outbreak within the last three years, 26% reported a pneumonia outbreak, and 8% reported a mortality outbreak. Most of the mortality outbreaks were associated with outbreaks of scours, pneumonia or both. Over 40% of herds had at least one outbreak between 2019 and 2021.
Scours outbreaks were more common in herds that calved cows and heifers together on the same pasture (practiced by 29% of western and 15% of eastern producers) compared to herds that calved cows and heifers on separate pastures. Scours outbreaks were also more common in herds that kept all heifers in the calving area until the end of the calving season (practiced by 14% of western and 44% of eastern producers).
Scours outbreaks weren’t more common in herds that regularly calved indoors. But scours were more likely in herds that only brought cows indoors to calve in severe weather (practiced by 45% of western and 10% of eastern producers). The reason for this was unclear.
Scours outbreaks were also more common in herds that vaccinated cattle before bringing them into the herd. This does not mean that vaccination causes scours. More western Canadian herds (51%) vaccinated cattle before bringing them into the herd than eastern Canadian herds (32%), but only 24% of herds had a scours outbreak in either side of the country. It’s more likely that herds that have more experience with scours are vigilant about vaccinating new arrivals to manage scours. As Cheryl Waldner says, “vaccination doesn’t cause scours – but scours can cause producers to vaccinate.” Timing is also important – purchasing new animals into the herd within a month of calving is a known risk factor for calf health.
Pneumonia outbreaks were more likely in the 25% of western and eastern herds that leased bulls for at least one season. Other research from the C3SN has shown that bulls are less likely to be vaccinated than the rest of the herd, so they may be the Trojan horse that expose well-vaccinated herds to respiratory pathogens. Sharing bulls can also be a general indicator of greater biosecurity risks.
Mortality outbreaks were more likely when cows were calved in the same area they had been wintered in (as practiced by 34% of western and 70% of eastern herds), or when all heifers remained in the calving area until the end of the calving season (practiced by 14% of western and 44% of eastern herds). In contrast to what was expected, the odds of mortality outbreaks were higher when all cows and heifers were calved in a single large pasture (practiced by 43% of western and 32% of eastern herds). Large pastures allow cattle to spread out more (which is good) but also make sick calves harder to find and treat.
What Does All This Mean to You?
Newborn calves are vulnerable and valuable. Ensuring calf survival starts long before they’re born. Vaccinating the cowherd and meeting their nutritional needs through the winter ensures that cows calve in good body condition and produce high-quality colostrum to give their calf a good start. But disease-causing pathogens are always there, and the less crowding and manure the calves are exposed to, the more likely they are to survive and thrive. Keep the calving area as clean as possible, whether that’s through avoiding calving on over-wintering areas, providing windbreaks and generous bedding, calving cows and heifers in separate areas, or moving cows and calves from the calving pasture into a nursery pasture a day or so after birth.
You can’t prevent all outbreaks, simply because you can’t control the weather. The producers participating in the C3SN are progressive producers who work closely with their veterinarians and keep good records, and 40% of them still experienced a scours, pneumonia, and/or mortality outbreak in the past three years. But you can reduce the risk of outbreaks by controlling what you can.
Bottom Line
The bottom line is what Longview rancher Stephen Hughes calls “stacking good decisions.” Doing the right things the right way doesn’t prevent every problem every time, but it certainly helps things go better a lot of the time.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Pooling Resources: Community Pasture Upgrades Water Systems for Healthier Beef Cattle 🎙️
Claire Sampson-MacDonald is the president of Maple Brook Co-operative Pastures Ltd., a community pasture on Cape Breton Island near Maple Brook, Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia, community pastures were started in the 1960s and run by the provincial governments for decades; but now the province owns the land, and the management of each pasture is handled by community organizations or co-operatives.
Maple Brook Co-operative Pastures currently has 22 members and about 106 acres of cleared land for grazing. The co-op grazes 75-80 head from May to November but is looking to increase its numbers as infrastructure and land improvements are made.
Aging Infrastructure
The Maple Brook pasture site is situated on a hill with a brook running through the lowest end of the pasture. For many years, the brook was the primary watering source for the entire grazing area.
This water management approach caused several issues:
Cattle weren’t gaining as much as they could: the single water source in the corner of the pasture meant cattle had to walk a long distance to get water, and the area close to the brook was grazed intensively leading to uneven land use.
With increasingly dry summers, the water levels in the brook were dropping by the end of the summer.
Cattle directly accessing the brook was not ideal for environmental stewardship and water cleanliness.
The BCRC’s Economics of Water Systems Calculator was developed to estimate the potential economic benefits and costs of alternative watering systems compared to direct access to dugout water.
Upgrading to Keep with the Times
Arial view of Maple Brook community pasture. Photo courtesy of Claire Sampson-MacDonald.
Following renewed provincial interest in the community pastures across Nova Scotia, Maple Brook was connected with Perennia Food and Agriculture Corporation, a provincial development agency. The Perennia team recommended developing additional water sources so the pasture could be divided into smaller blocks, allowing for more intensive grazing. They also advised fencing off the brook to limit cattle access, preserving water quality and minimizing environmental concerns. In response, the provincial government allocated funds to the pastures through the Community Pasture Support Program, enabling the co-op to begin making the necessary changes.
A Community Effort
Members of the co-op put time and energy into making the changes, supplementing the funding that Maple Brook received. They also sought advice from Perennia about solar pumps and how to design a water system with readily accessible materials.
Three ponds have recently been established to catch surface water run-off, with berms to keep them from being filled in. Water is pumped from the ponds using a solar powered pump with a battery back-up into reservoirs and then into troughs for the cattle. Additionally, the brook is now mostly fenced off, restricting cattle access.
One of the three new surface water and run-off ponds at Maple Brook. Photos courtesy of Claire Sampson-MacDonald.
Co-operative members worked together to make changes to the water system.
Adjustments and Future Plans
With more than one water source, Maple Brook is now able to rotationally graze their stock through the paddocks, better utilizing their full pasture area. This also benefited the pasture conditions with better distribution of grazing and animal traffic. In the first year, maintaining sufficient flow to keep the troughs full was a challenge, but equipment modifications to increase the flow resolved the issue. The new system also requires daily monitoring, in person, to address any potential problems. Future improvements will focus on enhancing access and drainage around the trough, as well as increasing their capacity.
Overall, benefits of the new system were quickly realized by Maple Brook: “What surprised me the most was how quickly we saw the benefits to the health of the herd. . . . You could tell even by June of that first year we had the ponds, that the cattle had gained better than what they had in previous years, and we weren’t even halfway through the pasture season.”
There is strong value in working with advisors whose expertise can help guide the process. For producers or groups facing similar challenges, embracing changes recommended by experts can result in benefits quickly.
Key Water Management Takeaways
Ensure cattle have easy access to clean water and, when possible, pump water into a trough.
Monitor water sources and systems regularly to address any problems that may arise.
Fence cattle out of water sources to prevent contamination.
Advisors are available to help with upgrading water systems.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following individuals for contributing their time and expertise to review this article and related resources:
Kaley Segboer-Edge, VBP+ Coordinator and ABP Stewardship Lead, Alberta Beef Producers
Dr. Mary-Jane Orr, General Manager, Manitoba Beef & Forage Initiatives
Dwayne Summach, Livestock and Feed Extension Specialist, Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture
Jaclyn Horenburg, Producer Relations Specialist, Beef Farmers of Ontario
Geoff Larkin, Climate Change Adaptation Coordinator, Agri-Commodity Management Association
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Calf Health Management — What Does the Science Say? 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the January 2026 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Sometimes two research studies will ask a similar question and get different results. That doesn’t mean that one is right and the other is wrong, or that it’s a coin toss, or that research is pointless – it just means that details and context are important. If we want to know whether a particular management practice helps prevent scours in beef calves, large-scale studies that measure signs of scours, treatment and recovery rates in beef calves are more helpful than studies that compare rectal temperatures or white blood cell numbers in a few dairy calves.
This is where “systematic reviews” are helpful. A systematic review clearly defines what kind of existing studies will help answer a specific question. Then it finds all the published studies that meet those criteria, reviews them, and identifies what they all agree on. Systematic reviews are extremely helpful when trying to make recommendations to real-life producers.
Claire Windeyer and a team of veterinary researchers from the Universities of Calgary and Saskatchewan recently published a systematic review of management practices related to pre-weaning death loss in beef calves (doi.org/10.1017/S1466252325000015). Then they convened a panel of 12 veterinary experts to identify and prioritize a large variety of management practices that would provide the greatest benefit for the most cow-calf producers (doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11100453).
What They Did
They screened 4,942 published research studies related to pre-weaning death loss. Eleven studies met their criteria to provide meaningful information regarding pre-weaning death loss in beef calves.
That doesn’t mean the other 4,931 studies were a waste of time and money – they may have been perfectly well-designed to effectively answer the specific question they were asking (e.g., “Do experimental vaccine formulations A and B produce similar immune responses against pathogen X in newborn calves?” That’s important to know in the early stages of vaccine development). They just weren’t helpful for this specific, producer-level question.
What They Learned
Four management practices clearly impact pre-weaning calf mortality.
Providing colostrum to calves that need assistance at calving and/or hadn’t nursed on their own reduced pre-weaning mortality. Calves that need help are still at a higher risk of dying before weaning compared to calves that don’t need any help, but providing these compromised calves with high quality colostrum shortly after birth greatly increases the likelihood that they will survive.
Injecting selenium and vitamin E at birth reduced calf mortality. The Canadian Cow-Calf Surveillance Network confirmed that many cows across Canada have less than adequate selenium, and vitamin E levels decline in stored or weathered forages. Selenium and vitamin E deficiencies can cause white muscle disease in newborn calves. Supplementing cows helps the cow but doesn’t necessarily transfer enough minerals or vitamins to the fetal or newborn calf fast enough. Injecting newborn calves is an easy way to rapidly prevent a common problem.
Calving season: Spring- or summer-calving herds lost fewer calves before weaning than fall- or winter-calving herds. Low temperatures and wind make small, wet calves feel even colder. Cold calves have a slower metabolic rate, are less vigorous and slower to nurse. If this means they don’t consume enough colostrum soon enough, they’ll receive less immune protection from the cow and be more likely to get sick and die before weaning. On the other hand, a calving barn can protect newborn calves from the cold, but it also bunches calves together, and that can increase the risk of disease transmission, sickness and death. This can pose a conundrum for purebred herds that calve early to produce bulls that are mature enough to breed as yearlings.
Length of the calving season: Herds with a shorter calving season had less pre-weaning death loss. Calving grounds should be relatively free of disease-causing microbes at the start of the calving season, so calves that are born early are exposed to less disease. Disease builds up as more and more cows calve, and as the earliest-born calves begin to shed their own pathogens and add to the disease load. As a result, calves born later in the calving season are exposed to more disease. With a tight calving season, the last calf is on the ground before the ‘disease machine’ cranks into high gear.
Veterinary experts agreed that providing colostrum to calves that have not nursed, and administering clostridial vaccines to preweaned calves will help reduce pre-weaning mortality in all herds. Many other recommended management practices (including specific vaccination, biosecurity, nutritional, and calving management practices) were deemed to be very useful for most or some herds. This doesn’t mean they’re optional – it means that they’re situational. They may not provide much benefit on some operations, but they may greatly reduce pre-weaning mortality on others. A few practices – including preventative or group antibiotic treatment under the direction of a veterinarian – were deemed to be potentially helpful in rare cases. Antibiotics aren’t effective for some diseases or pathogens, so veterinary direction is important to make sure you’re not simply wasting money on ineffective drugs, delaying effective treatment and risking the death of a valuable calf.
So What Does All This Mean…To You?
If you haven’t already, now’s a great time to touch base with your veterinarian to review your calving management practices and refresh your calf 911 practices.
The Bottom Line
Giving calves a good start in life greatly increases the odds that they’ll survive to weaning. Can you afford not to at these prices?
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.BeefResearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Cracking the Heritability Code — Choosing Traits That Pay Off 🎙️
Improving the genetics of your beef herd starts with knowing which traits you can change through genetics and which traits respond better to management practices. Because cattle have a long generation interval, every bull or replacement heifer you choose affects your herd for years. That’s why understanding heritability — and how traits interact with each other — helps ensure your breeding decisions move your herd toward your production goals.
What Heritability Really Means
Heritability tells us how much of a trait is controlled by genetics versus the environment and/or management. It’s expressed as a number between zero and one:1,3
High heritability (over 0.40): Traits are strongly influenced by genetics, meaning you can make changes more quickly by selecting the right replacements and bulls. Examples: ribeye area, marbling, weight and growth traits.
Moderate heritability (0.15 to 0.40): Traits that can be improved through both genetics and management. Examples: milk production and calving ease.
Low heritability (less than 0.15): Traits are mainly influenced by crossbreeding (e.g., heterosis/hybrid vigour and management (e.g., nutrition, colostrum, vaccination). Examples: fertility, reproductive efficiency and disease resistance.
Weaning weight has a heritability of 0.24 to 0.30, which means that 24% to 30% of the differences we see in weaning weights between cattle in a herd are caused by genetics. Table 1 provides a summary of the heritability of common traits. The higher the heritability, the more progress you’ll make through selection. Traits with low heritability still matter — they just require dedicated management to go along with genetic decisions.
As an example, improving pregnancy rates in beef cattle cannot be achieved through genetics alone. This is primarily due to fertility traits having low heritability and being heavily influenced by management factors such as nutrition, body condition, health and breeding season management. Until those areas are optimized, selecting new genetics alone won’t move the needle.
In contrast, calving ease is moderately heritable, and information can be used strategically when planning a heifer breeding program. Selecting sires with high calving-ease genetics can help avoid calving difficulties.
Table 1. Heritability in beef cattle
Trait Correlations: When Changing One Trait Affects Another
Traits don’t work in isolation. Selection for one trait can cause an increase or decrease in the expression of another, sometimes in ways you don’t want. Trait correlations are expressed as a number between +1 and –1.
A positive (+) genetic correlation means that as one trait increases, the other also tends to increase. A negative (-) correlation means that as one trait increases, the other tends to decline. Despite the positive/negative labels, neither automatically indicates whether the relationship is beneficial. A correlation is considered favorable when selection for one trait leads to a desirable change in another2. Table 2 shows examples of some trait correlations.
Table 2. Genetic correlations between selected traits1,2,4
Trait 1
Trait 2
Correlation*
Strength
Meaning
Milk
Calving Interval
Positive
High
Cows that produce more milk may take longer to rebreed due to higher energy requirements.
Milk
Total Energy Intake
Positive
Moderate
Higher-milking cows usually require more feed to maintain body condition.
Calving Ease Direct
Maternal Calving Ease
Negative
Low to Moderate
Improving calving ease direct of an animal itself can slightly reduce a daughter’s calving ease.
Fertility
Leanness
Negative
Moderate-High
Fast growing, lean genetics become larger cows that can have difficulty maintaining body condition and rebreeding.
Yearling Weight
Mature Cow Size
Positive
Moderate-High
Selecting for faster growing and larger calves often increases mature cow size.
Milk
Weaning Weight
Positive
Moderate
Higher milk production typically results in a higher calf weaning weight.
Birth Weight
Mature Weight
Positive
High
Smaller calves generally grow into small cows and bigger calves often become big cows.
Yearling Weight
Carcass Weight
Positive
High
Selecting for yearling weight will usually increase carcass weight.
Yearling Weight
Marbling
Negative
Low-Moderate
Selecting for yearling weight may decrease marbling slightly.
Yearling Weight
Ribeye Area
Positive
Moderate
Selecting for yearling weight tends to increase ribeye area.
*A positive (+) genetic correlation means that as one trait increases, the other also tends to increase.A negative (-) correlation means that as one trait increases, the other tends to decline.
Understanding these relationships helps avoid unintended consequences. For example, weight and growth traits tend to be positively correlated. So, selecting heavily for low birth weights will ultimately lead to smaller heifers that may be more prone to calving difficulties or calves that don’t grow as well as desired. Similarly, selecting large weaning or yearling weights will eventually produce bigger mature cows that cost more to feed.
These relationships mean that selection decisions should be made with your operation’s goals in mind. A herd keeping replacement heifers may prioritize balanced growth and moderate mature size, while a cow-calf operation selling all calves at weaning may put more emphasis on growth and weaning weights because they aren’t keeping replacements.
Key Questions to Ask When Managing Trait Selection:
Is this trait something I can improve through genetics (e.g., growth, carcass traits), or would crossbreeding and/or management be a more effective strategy (e.g., fertility, health traits)?
Will improving this trait support my overall goals (e.g., fertility, feed efficiency, carcass quality)?
What traits need to be balanced so I don’t create problems elsewhere (e.g., heavy calf weaning weights often lead to large mature cows)?
Use of Selection Indexes to Make Balanced Progress
Selection indexes help simplify genetic decisions by combining several traits into one value that reflects your breeding goals while also accounting for trait correlations behind the scenes, making it easier to avoid unintended trade-offs and helping prevent single-trait selection. Think of a selection index like a financial index: instead of tracking every single trait (or “stock”) on its own, the index combines them into one value based on their economic importance.
Like expected progeny differences (EPDs), indexes are breed-specific, so they cannot be compared across breeds, unless the genetic evaluation contains information from several breeds. Knowing which indexes fit your operation can make bull buying simpler and more profitable.
While indexes are extremely useful, they should be used alongside visual appraisal, structural soundness and good management to make the most informed selection decisions.
Examples of selection indexes include:
All-Purpose Indexes
Best for herds where heifers are kept and steers are marketed from the same calf crop
Balanced across maternal and terminal traits
Examples: Canadian Angus Association’s Canadian Balanced Index (CBI), Canadian Simmental All Purpose Index (API)
Maternal Indexes
Designed to build better mother cows
Prioritizes fertility, milk and stayability
Example: Canadian Hereford Association’s Maternal Productivity Index
Terminal Indexes
Used when all calves are sold and none kept for replacements
Focused on growth, feed efficiency and carcass traits like marbling and ribeye area
Example: Canadian Charolais Association’s Terminal Sire Index
Building a more productive herd starts with understanding which traits are driven by genetics and which ones respond more to management. Knowing the heritability of key traits and how those traits interact helps ensure that breeding decisions move your herd in the right direction without creating unwanted challenges.
Koots, K. R., Gibson, J. P., Smith, C., and Wilton, J. W. (1994). Analyses of Published Genetic Parameter Estimates for Beef Production Traits – Heritability. Anim. Breed. 62: 309-338 (Abstr.).
Koots, K. R., Gibson, J. P., and Wilton, J. W. (1994). Analyses of Published Genetic Parameter Estimates for Beef Production Traits – Phenotypic and Genetic Correlations. Anim. Breed. 62: 825-853 (Abstr.).
Thanks to the following individuals for contributing their time and expertise to review this article and related resources:
Karin Schmid, Beef Production and Extension Lead, Alberta Beef Producers
Chelsey Siemens, Livestock and Forage Extension Specialist, Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture
Macy Liebreich, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Beef Breeds Council
Stephanie Lam, Director of Research, Livestock Research Innovation Corporation
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Top 10 Podcast Episodes to Revisit as We Celebrate Episode 100 🎙️
To mark the occasion, Episode 100 is a special compilation bringing together key insights, tips and strategies from past episodes into one must-listen edition. Whether you’re a new producer or a seasoned rancher, this episode is packed with practical advice to help you achieve a smooth, healthy and successful calving season.
Since its launch in January 2024, the Canadian Beef Cattle Podcast has turned popular BCRC content into short, informative audio episodes, delivering beef research and production insights straight through your speakers. Whether you’re feeding cows, checking pastures or driving to town, each episode provides trusted, science-based information in a format that fits your day.
Let’s take a look back at the journey so far and spotlight the top 10 episodes that have informed, inspired and sparked conversation. Together, they reflect the curiosity, innovation and dedication that continue to drive the Canadian beef industry forward.
No two beef operations are the same, and there’s no single breeding program that fits all. The ideal breeding strategy depends on your specific goals and the management practices that align with them. This episode explores how to match genetics with your operational objectives for better herd performance.
Are smaller cows more efficient? They eat less and often wean calves that are a higher percentage of their body weight. Larger cows, meanwhile, require more feed and pasture but may offer other advantages. This episode digs into the data and practical insights to help you determine the right cow size for your operation.
Calving season can be stressful for both producers and cattle. Good planning helps ensure healthy calves while also supporting your own well-being. Tune in for simple, practical tips to make calving season smoother and more manageable.
Managing grasslands through drought is never easy. Having a plan, monitoring pasture conditions and adjusting as weather changes are key to protecting long-term productivity. This episode offers tools and insights to help you decide when to turn cattle out and how to manage pastures through challenging conditions.
This episode dives into how native forage ecosystems support resilience in Canada’s beef industry — and why understanding what’s “below the surface,” from soil health to root systems, is essential for long-term sustainability and productivity.
Parasite management is a balancing ;act. Control is vital for maintaining herd health and productivity, but overuse of treatments can lead to resistance issues. This episode shares nine practical tips for effective, sustainable parasite management you can apply on your operation.
In this episode, learn how Canadian beef producers have made major strides in environmental sustainability — reducing emissions, improving soil health and enhancing biodiversity — all thanks to continued research and innovation within the industry.
Trace mineral levels in soil and forage vary widely across Canada, creating potential deficiency risks. This episode explains why supplementation matters and how an effective mineral program can help prevent production losses, animal health issues and reproductive challenges.
Calf scours remain the leading cause of death in calves between two and 30 days old. Featuring veterinarians from across Canada, this episode offers expert insights and prevention strategies to help protect your herd and reduce calf losses.
Running a smaller herd can bring unique challenges — from time constraints to tighter budgets. This popular episode shares five practical management strategies that can help small operations stay efficient, productive and profitable.
Looking Ahead!
As we celebrate Episode 100, we want to thank all our listeners for tuning in, sharing and applying what you’ve learned. From practical management tips to research-based insights, the Canadian Beef Cattle Podcast exists to help beef producers make informed decisions every day.
Here’s to the next 100 episodes and turning research into action at the ranch gate!
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Can Grading Cameras Predict More Than Overall Carcass Yield? 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the December 2025 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Canada’s beef researchers and industry development funds were at the forefront of developing the modern camera grading technology now used worldwide. The system originally involved two cameras. A “hot” camera (installed in very few processing plants) measures length, depth and various contours of the carcass side. The “cold” camera (widely used for grading) evaluates marbling, backfat depth and ribeye area and assigns the same quality (marbling) grade and retail yield class (overall lean meat percentage) that human graders do.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada researchers led by Dr. Óscar López-Campos at the Lacombe Research and Development Centre showed that camera grading technology can do more than simply predict five retail yield classes. It can also identify differences between carcasses in the composition (and potentially the value) of individual primals and retail cuts for both fed cattle (Prediction of primal and retail cut weights, tissue composition and yields of youthful cattle carcasses using computer vision systems; whole carcass camera and/or ribeye camera; doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109120) and cull cows (Carcass and Primal Composition Predictions Using Camera Vision Systems (CVS) and Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) Technologies on Mature Cows; doi.org/10.3390/foods10051118).
What They Did
Six-hundred-and-thirty-four Angus-cross calves were raised and slaughtered as calf-fed (11 to 13 months of age) or yearling-fed (15 to 17 months) cattle at AAFC Lacombe, and 111 cull cow carcasses were sourced from a commercial abattoir.
In both studies, digital images were taken of the carcass side (hot camera) and the grading site between the 12th and 13th ribs (cold camera). The left side of every carcass was cut into eight primals (chuck, rib, loin, round, brisket, foreshank, plate and flank) and weighed. The primals from the fed cattle (not the cows) were further fabricated into 55 retail cuts.
What They Learned
Camera grading for fed cattle carcasses:The cold camera predicted overall retail cut yield (the basis of the Canadian Beef Grading Agency’s five carcass yield classes) better than either the hot camera or both cameras.
The cold camera also predicted the weight of the chuck, brisket and flank primals better than either the hot camera or both cameras. The hot camera worked best for the plate, and using both cameras worked best for the rib, loin, round and plate. But the improvements in accuracy from using either the hot camera or both cameras for these cuts were small (much less than half a pound) compared to simply using the cold camera.
A similar result was seen for primal composition. The cold camera predicted the lean percentage of the chuck, rib, foreshank, plate and flank better than the hot camera (or both cameras). Using both cameras predicted primal lean percentage better (by less than a tenth of a pound) for the loin, round and brisket.
The cold camera predicted retail cut weights better than the hot camera for 49 of the 55 retail cuts. The hot camera predicted the other six better. But again, the benefit of using more than one camera was very small.
Camera grading of cow carcasses gave different results. The hot camera predicted the lean content of the flank, round and foreshank best, and both cameras worked best for the brisket, chuck, loin, plate and rib. As with the fed cattle, differences in accuracy between the various camera combinations were relatively small for most primals. But using both cameras predicted the lean content of the chuck, loin and round more accurately than the cold camera alone. On average, the cold camera’s prediction of lean weight was off by three to seven pounds for these primals. Cull cows vary more in body condition score and muscling than fed cattle, so using the hot camera to get a better sense of overall carcass conformation may help provide better predictions of the lean content of the chuck and round in cows.
What Does This Mean to You?
There’s a limit to how far this can go. No animal will ever have more than one brisket per side, for instance. But consider two carcasses with the same weight, quality grade and yield class. They would have the same value at the packing plant. But different retail cuts can have wildly different prices. If slight differences in conformation mean that one carcass happens to carry two more pounds of striploin (retailing for $41/lb) and two fewer pounds of inside round ($20/lb) than average, while the second carcass is the opposite (two fewer pounds of striploin and two more pounds of inside round than average), their true carcass value would differ by $84.
Similarly, three extra pounds of loin from a cow carcass equates to quite a few steak sandwiches. If the packer knew that, they may decide to fabricate (and eventually price) carcasses differently based on these differences. This would be a step closer to value-based marketing. If these data could be tied to individual animal identification and shared back through the system, we’d have an opportunity to intentionally breed for carcass conformation. Wave your hands and talk fast and it can sound pretty exciting. But the “intentional” part would be critical. Selecting too hard for any one trait almost always has downsides. For example, modern turkeys are bred using artificial insemination. Turkeys lost the ability to mate naturally 40 years ago because of heavy selection for exaggerated breast muscling.
The Bottom Line
Computer and imaging technology are developing rapidly. Canada’s beef quality researchers are working hard to turn these technologies into opportunities for our industry to improve and streamline beef carcass processing.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Fences, Filters and Eavestroughs: Innovative Water Initiatives to Improve Herd Health 🎙️
Brian Windover and his son, Scott, own and operate Bayview Farms in Napanee, Ontario. Their operation includes a 90-head commercial Gelbvieh and Gelbvieh x Charolais cattle herd that is Verified Beef Production Plus (VBP+) Certified.
The farm includes 250 acres of pastureland with both treed and open fence lines. Two of the pastures border Hay Bay, a bay of Lake Ontario, and are fenced off to deny cattle access to the bay.
Maintaining good water quality has always been a top priority for Bayview Farms, leading them to implement several changes to reduce manure contamination and ensure an abundant supply of drinking water for their cattle.
A Stock Water Quality Issue
The main source of drinking water for the cattle comes from a spring-fed pond which feeds a well. Water is pumped from the well into troughs in the barn. Cattle are kept away from the pond with a dirt berm and concrete barriers. Despite this, Brian and Scott still noticed that the water was discoloured and smelly, particularly after heavy rainfall.
Over time, as the farm changed and buildings were modified, more manure built up in the barn yard. A low point developed near the barn and close to the pond, where water pooled. The manure contaminated the surface water, which leached through the ground and affected the water quality in both the pond and the well.
Knowing that poor water quality can negatively affect cattle health and weight gain, the Windover’s came up with a reasonable and cost-effective solution:
A filter bed was built to take contaminated water away from the pond and filter it.
Addition of ¾-inch clear stone gravel in the low spot by the barn along with a 250-foot run of perforated pipe with ¾-inch clear stone.
Brian was a little skeptical that their plan was going to work, but to his surprise, it had an instant impact. “With the filtration system we put in, it was pretty much an immediate change in the quality of the water. There was no more brown, discolored, smelly water,” he said.
Brian and Scott did the work themselves, completing the filter bed during the summer months when there were no cattle in the yard. The main costs for the project included perforated, big “O” pipe, a load of clean rock and the time they spent. Brian feels there was a return on investment from the higher quality water for the cattle through improved health and performance.
The dashed line outlines the filter bed area running diagonally in front of the barn. The pond lies to the left, beyond the long grass. Photo courtesy of Brian Windover.Concrete barriers and a wind break with new, clean stone visible against the barrier (outlined by the dashed line). Previously, water accumulated in this low spot in the yard. Now, it flows through the stones into a perforated pipe and drains away through the filter bed. Photo courtesy of Brian Windover.
Improving Stock Water Access: Capturing Rainwater
Despite Bayview Farms being a stone’s throw from Hay Bay and Lake Ontario, drilling a well in the area is not guaranteed to lead to abundant water. The area also occasionally experiences drought conditions. This prompted Brian to come up with an alternative way to improve water access through the installation of a water capture system on two of the operations barns – a 50’ x 100’ main barn and a 24’ x 48’ addition.
Rainwater from the barn roofs is captured in an eavestrough, drained through a solid pipe and then pumped into the pond. This simple system has been a success by increasing the water available in the pond as well as keeping the areas around the yard dry.
Key Water Management Takeaways
Fence off ponds and other water sources to prevent cattle from directly accessing and contaminating them.
Monitor water sources and address contamination to prevent long-term issues.
Cost-effective measures, like filtration systems and rainwater capture, can significantly enhance water quality and availability.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following individuals for contributing their time and expertise to review this article and related resources:
Dr. Mary-Jane Orr, General Manager, Manitoba Beef & Forage Initiatives
Dwayne Summach, Livestock and Feed Extension Specialist, Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture
Jaclyn Horenburg, Producer Relations Specialist, Beef Farmers of Ontario
Geoff Larkin, Climate Change Adaptation Coordinator, Agri-Commodity Management Association
Kaley Segboer-Edge, VBP+ Coordinator and ABP Stewardship Lead, Alberta Beef Producers
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the November 2025 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
In October 2021, this column described a research project that examined how long residues from growth promoters persist in the feedlot environment. They learned that residues from trenbolone acetate (TBA; used in some growth implants to mimic testosterone) and melengestrol acetate (MGA; sometimes fed to heifers to suppress estrus) dissipate very quickly after they’re excreted. However, residues from ractopamine (a feed additive that improves feed efficiency, weight gain and leanness late in the feeding period) could be found on the pen floor for up to five months after it was last fed.
Jon Challis and collaborators at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the University of Saskatchewan recently published a follow-up study to learn whether manure composting, stockpiling or soil incorporation help break down ractopamine residues and whether ractopamine residues can affect hormone levels in other organisms that may come in contact with them in the environment (“Chemical and bioassay-based characterization of the growth promoter ractopamine in beef cattle manure;” doi.org/10.1093/etojnl/vgaf211/8252989).
What They Did
Four pens of feedlot steers were raised using TBA implants and fed ractopamine for the last 42 days of the feeding period. Four pens of steers were raised without either growth promoter. Pens were cleaned as soon as the 273-day feeding period ended, and manure was windrowed on 12 separate pads (6 windrows per treatment). Half of the windrows (three per treatment) were stockpiled (left undisturbed) for 28 days. The other windrows were composted for 28 days and turned on day seven and 14. Each windrow was sampled at seven timepoints for residue analysis in the lab. Raw manure was also applied to soil plots that hadn’t received manure before. Manure was applied at a rate equivalent to 24 long tons per acre, incorporated, and sampled at nine different timepoints.
Ractopamine and TBA residues were extracted from the samples, and analyzed to see whether stockpiling, composting or soil application help break ractopamine down. Samples from days zero, four and 28 were also used in bioassays to see whether ractopamine occurred at high enough levels to impact hormone levels in even the most sensitive organisms. One bioassay used a breast cancer cell line that was extremely sensitive to factors that could drastically increase or inhibit androgen (e.g., testosterone) production. A second bioassay used a breast cancer cell line that was extremely sensitive to factors that could drastically increase or inhibit estrogen production. These cell lines are even more sensitive to hormonal disruption than the aquatic organisms that are sometimes seen to have skewed sex ratios or other abnormalities when exposed to environmental contaminants.
What They Learned
Levels of TBA (and its metabolites) were too low to detect, even on day 0. That’s not surprising – their previous study found the same thing.
Stockpiling vs. composting: Both manure handling approaches had similar effects. Levels of ractopamine dropped by at least 95% by the end of the 28-day trial. Most of the reductions occurred within the first 10 days.
Soil application: Ractopamine levels were much lower after raw manure was incorporated into soil, partly because the soil diluted the manure. But ractopamine levels also dropped by 80% over the next four weeks. Again, most of the decline happened within the first 10 days after manure was applied to the soil.
Androgen bioassay: Exposing manure extracts to the highly sensitive cancer cell line did not affect androgen production.
Estrogen bioassay: Manure extracts affected estrogen, but this was not because of growth promoters. Manure from steers that received TBA and ractopamine had the same effect on estrogen as manure from steers that didn’t get any growth promoters. So, what happened? The estrogen effect from the manure was probably stimulated by naturally occurring estrogen produced by the animals, phytoestrogens that came from the diet, or some combination of both. All animals produce estrogen, and many plants contain phytoestrogens, so manure from other livestock, pets or humans would very likely have the same estrogenic effect as cattle manure.
Bottom Line
A month of stockpiling or composting effectively reduced ractopamine residues to harmless levels in feedlot manure. Stockpiling or composting manure longer would virtually eliminate the remaining residues. These are both common manure management practices. In 2021, a Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef survey of 333 cattle producers across the country found that 17% of producers compost manure and 66% stockpile manure before spreading it.
What Does This Mean to You?
It’s not always possible, but it’s always best to have answers before tough questions arise. Growth promoters are a tremendously valuable tool for the feedlot sector. We’ve known for decades that beef from cattle raised using growth promoters is just as safe and nutritious as beef from cattle raised without them. This research looked for – and failed to find – potential effects on environmental health. Common manure management practices like stockpiling and composting make manure lighter and easier to haul and spread, while also helping to protect the environment.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
References
Challis, J.K.; Sura, S.; Cantin, J.; Curtis, A. W.; Shade, K. M.; McAllister, T. A.; Jones, J. P.; Giesy, J. P.; Larney, F. J. (2021). Ractopamine and Other Growth-Promoting Compounds in Beef Cattle Operations: Fate and Transport in Feedlot Pens and Adjacent Environments. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 55 (3). Available here.
Challis, J. K.; Cantin, J.; Thresher, J.; Curtis, A. W.; Jones, P. D.; Brinkmann, M.; Hogan, N.; Giesy, J. P.; McAllister, T. A.; Larney, F. J. (2025). Chemical and bioassay-based characterization of the growth promoter ractopamine in beef cattle manure. Environ Toxicol Chem. 44(11):3149-3158. Available here.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the October 2025 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Canada’s beef industry is built on exports. In 2024, Canada exported 550,000 metric tonnes of cattle and beef (net of imports). Most of Canada’s exports (75% of export volume and 79% of export value) went to the US because it’s right next door, our products are similar and American and Canadian consumers have comparable quality preferences and expectations.
Japan was Canada’s second largest export market (9% of volume and 7% of value). Japan primarily buys brisket, flank/plate, chuck and rib from Canada. The “rib” primal is home to the ribeye steak, which is one of the most highly marbled and high-quality cuts. But “highly marbled” and “high-quality” are subjective terms! Anyone who has seen or tasted Japanese Wagyu beef knows that it is much more highly marbled than Canadian beef.
The difference in marbling between Canadian and Japanese beef is partly due to genetics. Japanese Black cattle raised for Wagyu beef in Japan deposit more marbling than the beef breeds traditionally used in Canada. It’s also partly due to management (Japanese Black cattle are fed differently and for much longer than Canadian beef cattle). But the marbling difference between Japanese and Canadian beef is also partly due to differences in the grading system.
Canada’s grading system evaluates marbling in the ribeye muscle between the 12 and 13th ribs (roughly midway between the front and hind legs) and assigns a A, AA, AAA or Canada Prime grade. Japan’s grading system evaluates marbling in the muscles between the 6th and 7th ribs (behind the shoulder) and assigns one of 12 grades (JMGA 1 to JMGA 12). The ribeye muscle is cone-shaped and becomes much smaller as you move forward from the Canadian grading site to the Japanese grading site. This means that seams of intramuscular (marbling) fat running lengthwise through the ribeye are much more concentrated and visibly obvious at the Japanese site. As a result, the ribeye muscle from the same carcass will have a higher marbling score at the Japanese grading site than at the Canadian grading site, regardless of its genetics or how it’s been fed. Being able to “translate” the Canadian marbling score to a Japanese marbling score may help to market Canadian beef more effectively in Japan.
Óscar López-Campos led a team at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Lacombe Research and Development Center (AAFC Lacombe) studying whether the marbling score at Canada’s grade site can predict marbling scores at the Japanese grading site (Relating the Canadian and Japanese beef grading sites; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2025.109832).
What They Did
They raised 634 Angus-cross calves and slaughtered them as calf-fed (11 to 13 months of age) or yearling-fed (15 to 17 months) cattle at AAFC Lacombe. These carcasses were part of a much larger study that will be featured in a later issue. The 394 carcasses with the highest marbling (92.5% were AAA or Prime) were used to compare various meat quality parameters like pH, color measurements, intramuscular fat percentage, and visual marbling scores at the Canadian grading site vs. the Japanese grading site.
What They Learned
On average, the ribeye muscle contained 33% more intramuscular fat at the Japanese grading site than at the Canadian grading site. The Japanese grading site also had a higher pH and a brighter red lean color. These factors can make flecks of marbling more obvious to the grader’s eye. Together, more intramuscular fat, plus redder beef made for higher marbling scores at the Japanese grading site than at the Canadian grading site.
Nearly 90% of the carcasses that graded as AAA at the Canadian site between the 12th and 13th ribs would have graded JMGA 3 or JMGA 4 at the Japanese site between the 6th and 7th ribs, and over 85% of the carcasses that graded Canada Prime would have graded as JMGA 4 or JMGA 5. But it is also noteworthy that nearly a quarter (22%) of the carcasses in this study achieved a grade between JMGA 6 and JMGA 10 at the Japanese grade site. That’s getting near the top of the 12-category Japanese system. Those Canadian carcasses may also have a much better muscling than the more “dairy-like” conformation of traditional Japanese Black cattle.
What Does This Mean to You?
While Japan is a relatively small market for Canadian beef, it is important and lucrative, especially because it helps to diversify our markets beyond Canada and the US. Canada only produces 2% of the world’s beef. As a small player in a large international marketplace, Canada needs to be able to identify the markets that are looking for what we produce and help give those markets reasons to buy what we’ve got.
Bottom Line
The highest–end Wagyu beef is unaffordable to most Japanese consumers. But Canadian cattle can produce beef that is acceptable for the mainstream Japanese consumer. Being able to indicate how Canadian quality grades equate to Japanese marbling scores may help give our beef a slight edge in a very important export market.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
What Canadian Cow-Calf Producers Are (and Aren't) Adopting 🎙️
Insights for Strategic Research and Extension Programming
A comprehensive update on trends in management practices and performance across Canadian cow-calf operations is now available from the Beef Cattle Research Council.
Drawing from several sources—including the 2022-23 Canadian Cow-Calf Survey with 600 respondents nationwide, along with Census of Agriculture data and numerous other academic studies—this report tracks adoption trends for 31 practices across reproductive management, calf health, herd management, forage utilization, environmental stewardship and record-keeping.
Pregnancy checking has shown a stable trend across Canada. Within Western Canada, seven out of 10 producers perform pregnancy checks on their heifers, and around two-thirds of producers perform pregnancy checks on their cows. In Eastern Canada, pregnancy checking rates have also held relatively stable, with just over half of producers checking both cows and heifers.
The report shows the vast majority (94%) of respondents vaccinate at least one class of cattle for at least one disease. By province, the values generally show higher vaccination rates compared to the 2017 survey results.
Across Canada, weaning weights have decreased compared to those reported in the 2019 Adoption Rates Report. Ideally, the 205-day adjusted weaning weight should be between 40% and 45% of the mature cow’s weight. At the national level, this indicator is at the low end of the target range, at 39.5%, suggesting that cow weights are rising faster than weaning weights.
Expectations
The 2025 Canadian Cow-Calf Adoption Rates and Performance Levels Report acknowledges that 100% adoption is neither expected nor appropriate for any practice. What works economically for one operation may not work for another with different management systems, resources or market conditions. The goal is to ensure producers have access to trusted information which helps them make informed decisions for their specific situations and goals.
Tumblewheel fence for rotational grazing; photo courtesy Assar Grinde
The adoption of rotational grazing is stable across Canada. Within Western Canada, rotational grazing has remained stable at 50% and in Eastern Canada, the trend has remained stable at 48%.
The following practices exhibitedimprovement or stability in adoption trends, but adoption remains comparatively low nationwide:
Extensive winter feeding was the only practice to show decreased adoption. Reduced adoption could be influenced by factors such as prolonged drought, the use of alternative feedstuffs, prevailing pasture conditions or other relevant considerations. The adoption of bale grazing, swath grazing, stockpile and corn grazing (i.e., extended grazing practices) is low compared to in-field feeding levels. This implies that most in-field winter feeding is done with unrolled bales or the delivery of other feeds. However, the continued use of windbreaks and shelterbelts is a positive trend.
Emerging practices for producers across Canada include cover crops or intercropping and manure testing.
Calf resuscitation is a new benchmark in this report. In Western Canada, there is a decreasing positive trend in the adoption of hanging calves as a resuscitation practice. In Eastern Canada, the trend is currently unknown.
Key Findings with Important Regional Variations
Across Canada, more producers are paying attention to low-stress weaning methods. In Eastern Canada, two-stage weaning has become more common, now used by about one in five operations compared to only a few in 2016. Fence-line weaning has also grown in popularity, increasing from around 20% to over 30% of operations.
Within Western Canada, there is an increasing positive trend in calving distribution, with calving in the first 21 days on target with the 60% industry goal. For Eastern Canada, there is a decreasing negative trend for calving distribution, with about half of operations calving in the first 21 days, below the 60% industry target.
Bull breeding soundness exams in Western Canada have been shown to be close to peak adoption, trending from 72% to 71.4%. Eastern Canada is improving, but adoption is still low, with bull soundness exams trending from 7% – 17% previously to 23.5% stated in this report.
In Western Canada, about 29% of producers give calves vitamin or mineral injections, and around 12% tube feed colostrum after an assisted calving. In Eastern Canada, fewer producers use vitamin or mineral injections (about 12%) but more provide colostrum by tube (about 22%).
Pain control practices have increased significantly in Eastern Canada, from roughly half of producers surveyed a few years ago to more than 80% today.
Feed testing remains common in the West, with 60–74% of producers testing occasionally or more often. In the East, feed testing increased from roughly one-quarter of producers a few years ago to about half today.
Water quality testing has stayed relatively stable across the country, with a slight decline in the West. In Western Canada, about four in 10 producers test their water every few years — down slightly from previous surveys. In the East, water testing rates have held steady, with roughly one-third of producers checking water quality at least every three years.
When it comes to farm record keeping, paper is still the most common method across Canada — but more producers are also making use of digital tools. In Western Canada, overall record keeping is on the rise, with many producers using spreadsheets or software alongside paper notebooks. About three-quarters still use paper, nearly half use spreadsheets, and roughly one in five use accounting or cattle management software. In Eastern Canada, the use of paper records is trending down slightly as more producers switch to digital systems. Across the country, less than 2% report not keeping records at all.
Looking Ahead
This comprehensive report provides guidance for research priorities and knowledge mobilization efforts to benefit cow-calf producers on farms and ranches across Canada. By understanding where adoption or performance is high, where it’s improving and where barriers exist, strategies can be developed or targeted to better support producer profitability and productivity.
The full 132-page report is available for download on BeefResearch.ca and includes detailed provincial breakdowns, trend analysis and extensive references for those wanting to dig deeper into specific topics.
The 2025 Canadian Cow-Calf Adoption Rates and Performance Levels Report is also an interesting reference for producers themselves to compare their own operation to regional benchmarks. Comparisons to benchmarks help identify areas of excellence and opportunities for improvement.
The Canadian Cow-Calf Adoption Rates and Performance Levels Report was developed by Canfax Research Services for the Beef Cattle Research Council with editing support. It provides an update since the inaugural 2019 report on Adoption Rates of Recommended Practices by Cow-Calf Operators in Canada.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Nitrates can become a serious problem in beef cattle diets when consumed at high levels. Knowing how nitrates work, why they are a risk and how to manage them can help protect both your cattle and your bottom line.
Annual crops such as canola, wheat, corn, oats, barley, sorghum, Sudan grass, millet and rye are prone to nitrate accumulation.
Why Are High Nitrates a Problem for Beef Cattle?
When nitrates (NO3-) are consumed at low concentrations, rumen microbes can effectively convert them to nitrite (NO2) and then further to ammonia (NH3) to produce proteins. However, if nitrates are consumed at high concentrations, this metabolic process becomes overwhelmed, leading to a buildup of nitrite. This excess spills over into the bloodstream and binds to hemoglobin, reducing the blood’s oxygen-carrying capacity. The result is similar to carbon monoxide poisoning and is a medical emergency, as cattle can die quickly. If you suspect your cattle have nitrate poisoning, contact your veterinarian immediately.
When Are Nitrates the Biggest Risk?
Nitrates pose the biggest risk to cattle when plants have accumulated levels above what can be converted to plant protein – usually during stressful growing conditions such as heat stress, drought, frost and hail damage. These events result in an inhibition of the plants’ ability to process nitrates effectively. Elevated nitrate levels can also occur with excess nitrogen fertilization.
Annual crops such as canola, wheat, corn, oats, barley, sorghum, Sudan grass, millet and rye, along with common weeds like kochia, thistle, pigweed, lambs quarter, dock and sweet clover, are more susceptible to nitrate accumulation. Harvesting annual crops as dry, baled forage or greenfeed can be of particular risk as the drying process will not reduce nitrate levels. Grazing stubble fields of nitrate-accumulating plants, such as canola or corn, can also pose a danger. There is a much smaller risk of nitrate poisoning from perennial forages. Alfalfa, for example, stores nitrogen in the roots and only moves it to the rest of the plant when needed.
Symptoms of Nitrate Poisoning in Cattle
Symptoms of nitrate poisoning include:
Drought increases the risk of nitrates.
Reduced feed intake
Weakness or reluctance to move
Staggering
Muscle tremors or convulsions
Abortions
Brown, muddy gums
Respiratory distress
Collapse
Death
Sampling Feed for Nitrate Testing
To effectively manage nitrates in beef cattle diets, a feed test is needed. Nitrate levels can only be determined through laboratory analysis. Any feed suspected of having elevated nitrates should be tested.
A test result is only reliable if a good sample was submitted. Follow recommended procedures for collecting feed samples.
Interpreting Nitrate Levels
Different labs will report nitrate levels in different ways, such as percent of dry matter (% DM), parts per million (ppm) NO3- or nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-– N). Some labs offer a screening test (a “presence/absence” test) while others can quantify the amount of nitrate in the feed. Check with the lab for which test is used.
Below are conversion formulas to help you determine the level of nitrates in your feed:
Work closely with your nutritionist to interpret nitrate test results and balance rations.
Nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) x 4.43 = Nitrate (NO3-)
Potassium nitrate (KNO3) x 0.613 = Nitrate (NO3-)
Sodium nitrate (NaNO3) x 0.729 = Nitrate (NO3-)
Nitrite nitrogen (NO2-N) x 3.29 = Nitrate (NO3-)
The recommended safe level for nitrate consumption by cattle is <0.5% on a dry matter basis. This is the level in the total diet (feed and water combined). The table below provides a guideline for interpreting nitrate levels:
Feed Testing Interpretation Guidelines
Recommendation
Nitrate (NO3)
Nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N)
Potassium nitrate (KNO3)
Generally safe for livestock use.
<0.5% DM <5000 ppm
<0.12% <1200 ppm
<1% <10 000 ppm
Use with caution. Feed should be blended with low-nitrate forage to reduce risk. Avoid feeding to pregnant cattle.
0.5-1.0% DM 5000-10 000 ppm
0.1-0.2% 1000-2000 ppm
1.0-1.6% 10 000-16 000 ppm
Dangerous. High risk of poisoning. Dilute feed significantly to lower nitrate intake.
>1.0% DM or higher >10 000 ppm
>0.2% DM >2000 ppm
>1.6% >16 000
Management Tips When Dealing with High Nitrate Feeds
Test before feeding. Test all suspect feed to determine nitrate levels.
Don’t forget about water. Nitrates can build up in water sources and should be tested prior to livestock consumption. Visit the BCRC Water Systems for Beef Cattle webpage for more information on water quality and testing.
Avoid feeding to young, hungry, pregnant or lactating animals. These groups are more susceptible to nitrate poisoning.
Blend high-nitrate feeds. Mix with low-nitrate feeds to reduce the risk of poisoning. If mixing is not an option, put low-nitrate feed at the beginning of each feeding and follow up with higher-nitrate feed to ensure each animal has consumed the low-nitrate feed first.
Introduce high-nitrate feeds gradually. Allow the rumen time to adapt to moderate nitrate levels over time. Caution: cattle can lose tolerance to moderate nitrate feeds quickly, so do not feed intermittently.
Make harvest adjustments. Consider increasing cutting height at harvest to avoid the nitrate-rich stems.
Delay grazing. Wait 10-14 days to graze forages that have experienced stressful conditions to allow nitrates to dissipate. Caution: delay timing further if plants experience another stressful event.
Provide adequate energy. Feeding a high-energy supplement, such as grain, can help the rumen to metabolize nitrates into protein more effectively.
Ensile feeds. Ensiling can reduce the nitrate content, but forage quality will be reduced. Caution: test prior to feeding as there is no guarantee the ensiled feed will reach safe levels.
Proper management and feed testing are required for high-nitrate feeds to be utilized safely. The key is to know your numbers before the feed hits the bunk.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
Thank you to the livestock and feed extension specialists with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture and Dr. Vanessa Cowan, DVM, with the Western College of Veterinary Medicine, for sharing their expertise on this topic.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the October 2025 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
High-grain feedlot finishing diets improve feed conversion efficiency and produce high-quality, well-marbled beef. Corn has traditionally been the dominant feed grain in central and eastern Canada and the U.S., while barley is more common in western Canada. The structure of corn starch means that it will generally be digested more slowly than barley. Corn is usually steam-rolled to level the playing field in terms of digestibility and animal performance, while simpler and less costly dry rolling is adequate for barley. Corn has become more common in western Canadian finishing diets in recent years due to decreasing barley acres, increasing corn acres and corn imports. This has led some feedlots to install steam-rollers for corn. Research is underway to learn if steam-rolling improves digestibility and animal performance for barley-based diets.
High-grain diets must be managed carefully to avoid abnormal feeding behavior, rumen acidosis and liver abscesses that can negatively affect animal health and welfare. Forage (typically silage) is fed as a fiber source to help maintain normal rumen function, but this can come at the expense of feed intake and efficiency.
Finding the right forage-to-concentrate ratio is tricky, and a feedlot animal’s fiber requirements may go beyond just a minimum fiber level. Not all forages and fibers are the same. The important thing might be to provide the right level of the right kind of fiber. For example, fiber length is important. Fiber that is too short won’t be “physically effective” – it won’t provide the “scratch factor” that stimulates rumen activity. That’s why distiller’s grains can’t replace roughage in a finishing diet. Its particles are too fine to be physically effective.
But the chemical makeup of the fiber is also important. In recent years researchers have been looking more closely at neutral detergent fiber (NDF). Some forms of NDF can be digested. But NDF that is bound to lignin (which acts like rebar to help plants stand up) is much less digestible. Some NDF will resist microbial digestion for up to 240 hours in the rumen. This is called undigestible NDF (uNDF). Tim McAllister and coworkers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), the University of Guelph and the University of Saskatchewan studied how barley rolling method and uNDF levels affect animal performance and digestive health in finishing diets (Effect of undigestible neutral detergent fiber concentration in finishing diets containing dry-rolled or steam-rolled barley for feedlot steers: https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skae392).
What They Did
Four hundred Angus-cross steers averaging 970 lbs were fed finishing diets (89% grain, 6% roughage, 5% supplement) in 32 small pens at AAFC Lethbridge. Each pen received one of four diets containing either dry- or steam-rolled barley (processing index = 70%) as the energy source mixed with either barley silage (low uNDF) or barley straw (high uNDF) as the roughage source. The high uNDF (straw) diet contained 16% more uNDF than the low uNDF (silage) diet, as well as 6% less protein and 2% less starch. All diets contained 10% roughage. Physically effective fiber levels were 15% higher in the barley silage than in the barley straw (84% vs. 73%), but the uNDF levels were 85% higher for the barley straw than the barley silage (26.8 vs. 14.5%). The point is that the main difference between the roughage sources was the uNDF. Cattle were fed once daily for 112 days. Rumen pH was monitored throughout the experiment in six steers per diet. Growth performance, feed conversion, individual feeding behavior, rumen pH, carcass data and liver abscess scores were collected.
What They Learned
The method used to roll the barley didn’t matter much, but uNDF level impacted feeding behavior and rumen health.
Growth performance (feed intake, average daily gain and gain:feed) was unaffected by either barley grain rolling method or by uNDF level.
Feeding behavior wasn’t impacted by either barley grain rolling method, but steers fed the high uNDF (straw) diet spent more time at the bunk, ate more slowly and had briefer meals more often.
Rumen pH wasn’t affected by barley grain rolling method. Steers fed the high uNDF (straw) diet had a higher (less acidic) rumen pH than steers fed the low uNDF (silage) diet. The steers fed the high uNDF diet experienced less ruminal acidosis. They spent 3 fewer hours each day at below pH 6, 4.5 fewer hours below pH 5.8, and 12.5 fewer hours below pH 5.2 than those fed the low uNDF diet.
Carcass traits: Carcass weight, dressing percentage, lean yield were unaffected by barley grain rolling method or uNDF level. Significantly more steers fed dry-rolled barley graded AAA/USDA Choice than steers fed steam-rolled barley (82 vs. 70%). But other studies haven’t seen this, so this result shouldn’t be taken to the bank. Quality grade was unaffected by uNDF level.
Liver abscess score was unaffected by either barley grain rolling method or by uNDF level. Steers fed the high uNDF diet had 15% fewer severe liver abscesses than steers fed the low uNDF diet, but this difference was not statistically significant.
What Does This Mean to You?
Steam-rolling is important for corn, but it doesn’t offer any clear benefit for barley compared to traditional dry-rolling. But uNDF levels do appear to be important. Without changing the level of roughage in the diet, this research team was able to improve rumen conditions by increasing uNDF in the diet.
At this point, uNDF can only be measured using rumen incubation experiments, so it is not a practical measure yet. Physically effective fiber is a lot simpler, quicker, and less costly to assess than uNDF, so it will probably remain the gold standard for the time being.
Bottom Line
After a big problem is solved, the solution often seems obvious. But developing cost-effective solutions to big problems is rarely simple, fast or easy. Finding ways to cost-effectively optimize feed efficiency, animal health and welfare all at the same time is a big challenge, and efforts to solve it will continue.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
The Last Word (For Now) on Rest Stops During Long-Distance Transport 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the September 2025 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
When the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) began to muse about requiring that cattle be unloaded and provided with a rest stop after 36 hours of transportation, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Canada’s beef industry funded a series of research projects led by Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein’s team at AAFC’s Lethbridge Research Station to determine whether a rest stop would benefit weaned calves. The research began before the regulations were revised, but the regulations were revised before the research could be completed.
Three consecutive research trials conducted in 2018, 2019 and 2020 found that providing a rest stop during long haul transportation offered no consistent, measurable benefits for animal welfare. A companion project led by Trevor Alexander at AAFC Lethbridge looked at bacterial populations in the respiratory tract of those same calves. In September 2023, this column described how microbiological testing from the 2018 transportation trial found that rested calves had more bacteria associated with bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in their respiratory tract than unrested calves. The microbiological results from the 2019 and 2020 transport trials reports were published recently (Providing a rest stop during transportation affects the respiratory microbiota of beef cattledoi: 10.3389/fcimb.2025.1622241).
Find more information on the impact of rest stops during long haul transportation:
This report presented the results of the last two long-distance rest-stop transportation trials conducted by AAFC Lethbridge in 2019 and 2020. To recap, in the fall of 2019, 320 newly weaned crossbred steer calves from one ranch were delivered to the research station. They were processed and adapted to the feedlot diet and environment for four weeks to ensure that the effects of weaning stress had passed and would not interfere with their response to transportation. After four weeks they were loaded, transported for 36 hours, and unloaded. Half of the calves were immediately reloaded and hauled four more hours to the research facility. The other half were rested in pens with bedding, feed and water for 12 hours, reloaded and hauled the final four hours to the research facility.
In the 2020 trial, 328 freshly weaned crossbred steer calves from two ranches were processed at the research station but not allowed to acclimate to the feedlot environment. They were loaded and hauled for 20 hours (roughly corresponding to a trip from Lethbridge to Thunder Bay) and unloaded. Half of the steers from each ranch were immediately reloaded and hauled for another 15 hours (roughly the time from Thunder Bay to Kincardin, Ontario) to the research facility. The other half were rested in pens with bedding, feed and water for 8 hours before being reloaded and hauled the final 15 hours to the research facility.
During both the 2019 and 2020 trials, deep nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 12 rested and 12 unrested steers before they were loaded the first time, when they were unloaded after the first leg of the trip, before they were reloaded after the rest period, after the final unloading at the research station, and at several subsequent points over the following four weeks. The research team identified the relative proportions of different bacteria in these samples and assessed whether providing a rest stop affected the prevalence of different respiratory bacteria.
What They Learned
The most abundant bacteria identified in all nasopharyngeal samples included Mannheimia, Pasteurella, Histophilus, Mycoplasma (all of which are known to be involved in bovine respiratory disease, or BRD), Moraxella (which is sometimes identified in BRD cases) and Streptococcus (which may predispose calves to BRD by producing an enzyme that breaks down the mucus that protects the lining of the respiratory tract from disease-causing pathogens). All of these bacteria except Pasteurella were more abundant in samples collected from rested calves than in samples collected from unrested calves.
What Does This Mean to You?
None of the three transport trials showed that providing a rest stop during long distance transport provided any clear or consistent benefits for the health or welfare of feeder calves. The three microbiome studies now provide consistent evidence that rest stops may pose a risk to the respiratory health of calves. The experimental groups were too small to measure statistically meaningful differences in actual illness due to BRD, but more rested calves were treated for BRD than unrested calves in both 2019 (11 rested vs. 7 unrested) and 2020 (17 rested vs. 8 unrested).
The Bottom Line
Canada’s beef industry and AAFC funded these studies to generate the information the Canadian Food Inspection Agency would need to formulate science-based updates to the regulations governing cattle transport in Canada. Unfortunately, the CFIA imposed the requirement to provide a minimum 8-hour rest stop after 36 hours of transport before the research could be completed. We remain hopeful that the CFIA will take this science into consideration and rethink the rest stop requirement. It’s not too late to do the right thing.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
Melendez, D.M., Marti, S., Gellaty, D., Nordi, W., Haley, D.B., Schwinghamer, T.D., Scwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S. (2019). Effects of transport time and rest stop duration on welfare indicators of beef cattle travelling by road. Journal of Animal Science 97(3), 9-10, https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz258.016.
Melendez, D.M., Marti, S., Haley, D.B., Schwinghamer, T.D., Scwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S. (2020). Effect of transport and rest stop duration on the welfare of conditioned cattle transported by road. PLoS ONE 15(3): e0228492. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228492
Melendez, D.M., Marti, S., Haley, D.B., Schwinghamer, T.D., Scwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S. (2021). Effects of conditioning, source, and rest on indicators of stress in beef cattle transported by road. PLoS ONE 16(1): e0244854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244854
Uddin, M., Scwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., Waldner, M., Melendez, D.M., Niu, Y.D., Alexander, T.W. (2023). Auction Market Placement and Rest Stop During Transportation Affect the Respiratory Bacterial Microbiota of Beef Cattle. Frontiers in Microbiology, Vol. 14, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1192763.
Uddin, M.S., Bumunang, E.W., Waldner, M., Scwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., Melendez, D.M., Niu, Y.D., Alexander, T.W. (2025). Providing a rest stop during transportation affects the respiratory microbiota of beef cattle. Front. Dell. Infect. Microbiol., Vol. 15, 2025. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2025.1622241.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Tap Into Savings: Comparing Water Systems for Better Beef Herd Performance 🎙️
Insufficient access to good quality water reduces beef cattle performance faster and more dramatically than any other nutrient deficiency. Consequences can be immediate and severe, especially in hot summer weather or during drought. Investment in a well-designed water system is critical, not only to maintain cattle productivity and health, but also to support pasture utilization and to conserve water during dry conditions.
Results of the Farm Management Survey (Statistics Canada, 2021) showed 71% of beef cattle operations allowed their cattle unlimited access to surface water sources, while only 28% reported limited or no access. Among those operations that reported limited or no access, 57% used remote or off-site water systems. These systems can lead to increased weight gain, improved reproductive performance and health as well as enhanced longevity of a water source. However, managing water systems can often be challenging, with various factors to consider such as the availability of water sources, infrastructure requirements and long-term maintenance costs.
Recognizing the importance of these factors, the Beef Cattle Research Council (BCRC) has updated the Economics of Water Systems Calculator, a tool designed to assist cattle producers in evaluating the initial cost, maintenance costs, potential economic benefits and pay-back period of their water system(s).
Features of the Updated Water Systems Calculator
Useful and versatile features of the newly updated livestock water systems calculator include:
Above-Ground Pipeline System Option: This option compliments the previous buried pipeline scenario. Above-ground systems can be less expensive and easier to install in certain situations compared to traditional buried pipelines. When terrain allows for drainage in the fall, this makes them a practical option for some operations.
Funding Opportunity Section: With funding available from various provincial government programs, this section provides examples of how access to funding can make water systems more affordable.
Cow-Calf and Yearling Interface: This new version maintains the cow-calf and yearling options, including the weight gain benefit for each class of cattle.
Windmill, Solar, Underground Pipeline and Aeration: As with the original version, this update maintains the three options for water systems along with aeration treatment for yearlings. It also allows producers to customize for surface water, like a dugout, or drilling a well and having a storage tank.
The tool provides default values for various water system costs as a reference. However, these costs can vary widely from region to region, so beef producers are encouraged to determine the specific costs for their own operations and input those values accordingly.
The economic benefits outputs are based solely on additional weight gain from pumped water compared to direct water access. However, water systems offer numerous other advantages with potential economic returns not addressed by this tool including:
Improvements in animal health due to reduced bacterial contamination, as well as a decrease in mastitis and foot rot from limiting cattle’s exposure to standing water.
Environmental benefits are also significant, including the protection of water sources, preservation of wildlife habitats and more efficient pasture utilization.
Pumping water into troughs can help extend the availability of water during dry years, when stock water resources may become limited throughout the grazing season.
“If you’re not taking a big picture view (of your water systems), you’re leaving money on the table.”
– Dr. Mary-Jane Orr, Manitoba Beef & Forage Initiatives
Using the Economics of Water Systems Calculator
To demonstrate the calculator’s functionality, we will use a cow-calf operation evaluating four off-site water system options:
Windmill pump system
Solar pump system
Aboveground pipe system (with pump)
Belowground pipe system (with pump)
Figure 1: Producer information for cow-calf pairs
This scenario assumes 100 cow-calf pairs (Figure 1). Ensure the projected sale price for calves is up to date, as it will directly impact the calculated economic benefits of the water system. Other assumptions include no requirement for a new water source and no purchase of new storage tanks. One new trough, priced at $1,750, is added for each system (Figure 2). This scenario sets all potential funding for off-site water to $0.
Figure 2. Assumptions for comparison of four water system types and the calculated total initial cost
Based on the numbers inputted and the rate of gain expected, additional weight gain is used to calculate the economic benefit of utilizing off-site watering systems (Figure 3).
In this scenario, the estimated economic benefit of using a pumped water source vs. direct access is $76/head.
Figure 3. Estimated economic benefits from increased calf weights due to the use of an off-site watering system
The calculated economic benefit is then compared to the cost of the water system (Figure 4). It is also used to calculate the number of years to pay off the initial cost of the water system (Figure 5). In this scenario, the solar-powered pump system is the only option that provides an economic benefit above the estimated initial cost of the system within the first year. The solar-powered system will pay off in less than one year, while the other systems will take up to two to three years, solely based on calf weight gain attributed to off-site watering.
Figure 4. Costs and benefits of implementing four off-site watering systems
Figure 5. Number of years required to pay off the initial cost of the off-site watering system
The Bottom Line
Water management is always vital. When water is scarce during drought, having a reliable system in place not only protects herd health but also supports pasture productivity and long-term sustainability. Proactive water planning today can help producers secure a resilient future for their operations.
Thanks to the following individuals for contributing their time and expertise to review the Water Systems Calculator and related resources found in this article:
Dr. Mary-Jane Orr, General Manager, Manitoba Beef & Forage Initiatives
Dwayne Summach, Livestock and Feed Extension Specialist, Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture
Jaclyn Horenburg, Producer Relations Specialist, Beef Farmers of Ontario
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
From Field to Feed: Six Things to Think About When Storing Hay 🎙️
As swathers, haybines and balers hit the fields, storing forages is on the minds of many beef cattle producers. Proper hay storage is essential to preserve these resources produced in the summer months and provide high-quality winter feed for livestock when grazing is not feasible or accessible.
Preparation done ahead of time can help to avoid quality and quantity loses when harvested forages are exposed to the weather. A six-foot diameter round bale stored uncovered can be expected to have spoilage in a four-inch layer around the outside of the bale, which represents 20% of the bale volume.
Given that feed is the major input cost in cattle production, producers must evaluate the cost of production for all stored hay systems to determine the one that best fits their operation and goals.
Six considerations to enhance stored hay quality:
1. Minimize storage losses due to heating and mould growth by baling at moisture levels between 15% and 18%.
2. Increased bale density enhances the ability of round bales to shed water. Even, uniform windrows make formation of consistently shaped and dense bales easier.
3. The external layer of a bale represents a substantial loss of yield and quality due to weathering. Bale size impacts the proportion of hay in the surface layer with larger bales having less percentage of their total feed exposed.
4. Choose well-drained storage sites: regardless of the method of storage, bales will pull moisture up from the ground through a “wicking” action. Therefore, choosing well-drained sites for storage locations can help prevent this.
5. Large round bales without cover should be stored end-to-end in single rows in a north-south orientation. Include space between the bales to facilitate good air circulation and drying.
6. Storage losses can be reduced by two-thirds with indoor storageand by one-half with good covering outside.
Hay storage is important to preserve forage quality and to provide cattle with the essential nutrients required to keep them healthy and the operation running smoothly. All farms are different, and no storage system is one size fits all, so find the option that works best with your farm.
For more information on hay quality and management, silage production, bale silage and greenfeed, visit the BCRC’s Stored Forages webpage.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Experiencing Drought? Five Things You Can Do To Help Manage Your Herd, Pastures and Health 🎙️
Despite recent rainstorms in some regions, drought has once again hit hard in many parts of Canada. Many areas are dealing with multiple years of dry conditions. If you’re managing through a difficult season, the following strategies can help protect your beef cattle operation and your wellbeing.
There is no one-size-fits-all plan to deal with drought, but there are some key things you can do to help manage your pastures, cattle and health during a drought.
1. Take Stock of Your Feed and Forage
The first step in managing drought is to know what you have on hand. This includes:
Complete a feed inventory within the next couple of days. Calculate your current feed supply in terms of days or weeks of feed remaining at normal feeding rates. This timeline will drive all other decisions.
Test your feed quality as soon as possible. Feed testing is even more critical in drought years to help make feeding decisions.
Immediate Actions (this week):
Complete feed inventory
Test water quality
Test feed quality
Short-Term Planning (next 1-3 weeks):
Adjust grazing rotation
Consider early weaning
Explore feed purchasing options
Long-Term Strategy (next month):
Plan for potential herd reduction
Assess financial resources
Prepare for recovery
2. Use Grazing Management to Your Advantage
Grazing management can help pastures not only survive during a drought but also improve recovery after one. Some things to consider:
Group cattle together when rotational grazing, which allows pastures additional time to rest between moves
Use smaller paddocks: If you have a smaller herd or have already combined groups, using smaller paddocks to graze cattle can also increase the rest time of paddocks not being grazed.
Protect your soils by leaving litter (plant residue) behind when grazing. This helps trap moisture that does fall, reduces water loss through evaporation, and prevents bare soil from being exposed to the sun and heating up.
Choose your pasture rotation carefully, knowing which pastures have species that can recover from increased grazing pressure (for example, crested wheat) and grazing those vs. the species that will not respond as well to grazing pressure.
Keep an eye out for toxic plants. As forage becomes less available, cattle may start to eat plants they would otherwise ignore. Check pastures for toxic plants and consider fencing them out of problem areas.
As tempting as it may be to graze pastures harder than normal during a drought, management practices that promote pasture rest can lead to more overall forage being available and quicker recovery times when rain does hit.
3. Don’t Guess Water and Feed Quality
Drought can significantly impact water quality, particularly in dugouts and ponds.
Testing your water sources monthly or more often if something seems off can help prevent wrecks from happening.
Fencing off water sources and pumping to a remote site, such as troughs, will improve water quality and reduce water losses that occur when livestock have access to non-fenced sources.
Be sure to look at toxin levels in both your feed and water. In years of drought, feed can also be high in nitrates and sulfates, so make sure you are looking at both to get the complete picture.
4. Consider Alternative Feeding Strategies
When pastures can’t support the herd, confinement feeding or supplemental feeding might make sense. With the proper ration, cows can maintain condition on a mix of grain and roughage—even with limited hay.
Use a tool like CowBytes or work with a nutritionist to build a ration that works with what you have.
Consider early weaning: Cows are more likely to maintain an adequate body condition when they are not producing milk. Early weaning and creep feeding can reduce stress on the pasture and overall feed requirements because calves consume a significant amount of forage when with their dams.
5. Take Care of Yourself and Your People
Drought is stressful and can be overwhelming. Therapists from the AgKnow Counseling Network recommend the following to help you deal with the stress of drought:
Acknowledge your reality. It’s okay to point out that this is hard.
Sleep when you can: Getting a full eight hours of sleep is not always possible during busy seasons, but sleep is essential to rejuvenate your mind and muscles and keep you able to make the best decisions in the moment. When you can, practice good sleep hygiene to help you get a more restful night’s sleep:
Try not to look at your phone one hour before bed.
Check in with yourself: Consider using AgKnow’s anonymous self-check-in tool, How Are You Really.
“This isn’t forever.“Drought feels endless, especially for those who have been dealing with it for years, but it’s good to remember it will pass.
Remember, “success looks different this season.” Focus on things you can control. You may not be able to control the weather or pasture yields, but maybe success in drought looks like managing through it in a way that contributes to long-term sustainability.
Remind yourself that “This is tough, but I’ve done tough before.” And you will do it again; that is the reality of agriculture. When the clouds build and the rain falls just a few miles away, it’s easy to feel like the weather is against you. But in that moment, try to focus on what’s still yours to manage. That shift in mindset can make a big difference.
Stay connected. Talk to your neighbours, your family. You’re not in this alone. If the stress is too much, there are people who understand and want to help. There are several ag-informed mental health support organizations in Canada that can provide the support you need.
Decision-Making During a Drought
It’s never easy to make tough calls in a drought year. However, taking stock of the resources available to you and planning accordingly can help reduce risk, protect your land and keep your operation on track for the future.
You don’t have to do it alone; reaching out to extension specialists, local producer groups, nutritionists, veterinarians or mental health specialists can help you to plan for both the short-term and long-term success.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
YOU ARE HERE -- Beef Producers Have a Game Plan to Keep Canada FMD-Free 🎙️
Canada’s last outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) occurred in Saskatchewan in 1952, and, since then our herds have remained free of FMD. According to the World Organisation for Animal Health, Canada is designated as FMD-free without vaccination. This designation is awarded to countries that do not have the FMD virus circulating among cloven-hoofed animals without regular preventative vaccines.
The 1952 outbreak was traced to contaminated clothing and/or a single sausage brought over by a farm worker from Germany. This seemingly harmless act of bringing soiled clothing or a foreign food product had devastating effects on the Canadian economy, costing approximately $722 million in expenses and lost revenue at that time. If an outbreak were to occur in Canada today, it is estimated that the economic impact could soar upwards to $75.8 billion.
Canada’s FMD-free status is not a matter of luck. It has been maintained through decades of dedication to strict import and export regulations, border security and public awareness. Canadian beef producers must remain vigilant, working together to prevent FMD from crossing our borders and being prepared to act swiftly if a suspect case is detected.
Help Keep Canada FMD-Free One Smart Move at a Time
You Are Here! Prevent and Prepare
Canada is currently able to prevent Foot and Mouth Disease from crossing our borders and to prepare for any suspected FMD cases.
The Canadian livestock industry is currently unaffected by FMD.
Beef producers must remain aware and continue to take steps to minimize risk of FMD and other diseases.
Proactive planning, training and implementing biosecurity measures is a key focus.
Suspect
If an unusual animal health event occurs, industry may be asked to remain vigilant and take precautions to minimize serious animal disease risk, which may trigger a presumptive or confirmed positive condition.
PRESUMPTIVE: If a notice of suspicion is issued by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) or provincial governments, the beef industry may be asked to voluntarily pause non-essential movements on and off farms.
CONFIRMED POSITIVE: If a positive case of FMD is confirmed by Canada’s Chief Veterinary Officer, Chief Provincial Veterinarian or a federal or provincial Minister, it may trigger CONTAINMENT strategies including movement controls of animals, personnel, products and equipment.
Trace
To mitigate the impact of FMD, effective traceability is essential for disease tracking and control. Traceability requires animal ID, premises ID and movement recording. Producers facilitate an effective response by keeping up-to-date records, registering their premises and implementing traceability options.
VACCINATE: If FMD were detected in Canada, emergency vaccinations may be ordered to help contain the disease, protect animals and safeguard the industry.
After vaccination protocols were implemented, the industry would turn towards DEPOPULATION and DISPOSAL of infected animals as well as rigorous CLEANING and DISINFECTING protocols based on guidance from the CFIA and provincial authorities.
Recover
The goal of emergency preparedness and the associated response is to recover from an outbreak and to regain a status of FMD-free without vaccination.
Canadian beef producers and consumers can be confident of this current reality (free of FMD without vaccine) in Canada but being aware that a process exists for immediate action and response if a suspected case should arise, is an important piece in the game.
If you suspect Foot and Mouth Disease on your farm, contact your veterinarian immediately.
“Establishing a dedicated FMD vaccine bank is a vital tool in safeguarding the health of our livestock, market access and the future of our industry. CFIA’s announcement marks a key milestone towards our shared goal of strengthening Canada’s preparedness against the threat of Foot and Mouth Disease. We will continue to work with governments and stakeholders to ensure Canada has a robust emergency preparedness and prevention strategy against FMD.”
– Tyler Fulton, President, Canadian Cattle Association
A collaborative effort between the BCRC and Animal Health Canada (AHC) is currently underway ensuring that prevention and emergency response resources are being tailored specifically to the needs of Canadian beef producers.
Animal Health Canada is a not-for-profit corporation jointly funded by its members, which include federal, provincial and territorial governments, industry organizations and other partners working in animal health and welfare in Canada. AHC works to bring groups within Canada’s livestock industry together to keep Canada’s farms healthy. As an organization that promotes an understanding of the various roles and responsibilities within the livestock industry, they provide resources to ensure preparedness in the case of emergencies.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the June 2025 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
About 20 years ago, Doug Wray drove in from Irricana, Alberta, to ask why the beef industry didn’t fund more forage breeding. Back then, the usual beef industry response to forage breeding proposals was “let the government and forage groups fund that.”
Photo credit: Beef Farmers of Ontario
Doug calmly explained that the forage groups he was active in don’t have a check-off. So, if beef cattle producers wanted better forage varieties, beef producers would need to invest in forage breeding.
When we looked into it, we found there weren’t many forage breeders left in Canada. Universities and government administrators explained that low industry funding signaled that forage breeding wasn’t a priority. So, retired breeders weren’t replaced, and long-term breeding and management programs had been scaled back or closed.
After the beef industry began to invest in forage breeding (largely thanks to the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off), universities and Agriculture Canada began to reinvest in a new generation of forage breeders. Canada has fewer forage breeders than 20 years ago, but the ones we have are very enthusiastic, attuned to industry and working hard to address industry priorities.
Dr. Bill Biligetu (University of Saskatchewan) and Dr. Annie Claessens (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Quebec City) compared how different forage varieties performed under different growing conditions across North America (Genotype × environment interaction patterns of dry matter yield in meadow brome, orchardgrass, tall fescue, and timothy evaluated at harsh winter sites; DOI: 10.1002/glr2.12088).
What They Did
The research team evaluated the yields of registered varieties and experimental populations from four different perennial tame grasses at seven locations across North America. They evaluated nine meadow bromes, nine orchardgrasses, seven tall fescues, and ten timothies. Plots were grown and harvested in 2019, 2020 and 2021 under dryland conditions in Alberta (two annual cuts of orchardgrass in Beaverlodge), Saskatchewan (two cuts of all four grasses in Saskatoon and Swift Current), Quebec (three cuts of all four grasses in Saint-Augustin and Normandin) and under irrigation in Utah (five cuts of all four grasses in Millville and Panguitch).
What They Learned
Meadow brome and timothy produced the highest yields at all sites except at Normandin and Panguitch where timothy was outperformed by orchargrass and tall fescue.
Location x variety interactions: The grass variety that had the highest overall yield (averaged across all locations) didn’t necessarily have the highest yield at every individual location.
When yields were averaged across all six sites, the three highest yielding meadow bromes were Armada (registered by AAFC Saskatoon in 2009), S9498 (an experimental University of Saskatchewan population), and UTMB-B (an experimental Utah population). These three outyielded the bottom two meadow brome varieties by 8%. But Armada’s high overall yield was because it performed so well under irrigation in Millville. Experimental populations from Quebec (QBP-1301) and Utah (UTMB-B) performed better in Normandin, Saskatoon and Swift Current, and Paddock (registered by AAFC Saskatoon in 1987) gave the best yields in St-Augustin.
Overall, the top performing orchardgrass varieties were AC Killarney (registered by AAFC Brandon in 2007) and AC Early Arctic (registered by a private BC company in 2002). They yielded 10% better than the bottom three orchardgrasses. But again, these top two varieties didn’t yield the best at every location. AC Killarney yielded best in Utah, while AC Early Arctic yielded best in St-Augustin. Other varieties were better suited to Beaverlodge, and two experimental populations yielded best in Normandin, Saskatoon and Swift Current.
Tall fescue did not have a variety x location interaction; Courtenay (registered by a private BC company in 1987) and S9582 (an experimental population from the University of Saskatchewan) yielded best at all locations and outperformed the bottom two varieties by 53%. Those other two varieties might be better suited for other environments, though.
The three overall highest yielding timothies included CDC Tiznow (registered by the University of Saskatchewan in 2022), Climax (registered by AAFC Ottawa in 1947), and an experimental Utah population (UTM1602). They outyielded the bottom variety by 24%. CDC Tiznow yielded well in Millville, Normandin and Saskatoon, Climax yielded well in Panguitch, and the Utah population yielded best in Swift Current. Experimental populations from AAFC Quebec performed best in St-Augustin.
So, What Does This Mean to You?
Variety is important. Not all meadow bromes are the same, and the same goes for other grasses and legumes. This paper focused on yield, but the same concept applies to other important forage traits. A locally developed variety might not be the best choice for your situation. Sometimes a variety developed elsewhere might be your ideal option. The key is to choose a variety that is well adapted to your local conditions, regardless of where it was originally developed. Over time, long-term, collaborative variety trials like this should help develop more refined variety selection recommendations for different climatic and soil zones. This project is ongoing, and has expanded to include breeders in Lethbridge, Winnipeg and Nappan.
The Bottom Line
The beef industry’s support for forage breeding can be traced back to producers who spoke up. The Beef Cattle Research Council has launched an on-line survey at BeefResearch.ca to inform forage, cattle and beef research priorities for the next five years. Here’s your chance to speak up!
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.BeefResearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the May 2025 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on the BCRC Blog with permission of the publisher.
Food safety problems related to Canadian beef rarely make the news these days, because they hardly ever happen. That hasn’t always been the case. Canada’s food safety has come a long way over the past century. Drs. Xianqin Yang (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Lacombe) and Kim Stanford (University of Lethbridge) recently reviewed this history (A 99-year journey on the evolution of food safety in Canadian livestock production; https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2024-0150).
Where We Started
In the 1920s, nearly 15% of Canadian children died before two years of age because of a variety of milk-borne diseases including bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis. Pasteurization effectively dealt with these problems.
Bovine tuberculosis can also be transmitted through undercooked beef, but it’s virtually impossible to effectively pasteurize different beef cuts that vary greatly in size and thickness. Instead, potentially infected beef was detected based on the identification of tuberculous lesions in the head, chest and internal organs of cattle. Aside from that, meat safety was largely based on “if it looks, smells or tastes bad, you probably shouldn’t eat it.”
Canada began tracking foodborne disease in the 1970s, but limitations in diagnostic capabilities meant that the microbe responsible was only identified about 20% of the time. This spurred the development of Canada’s foodborne disease reporting system. Being able to quickly and accurately identify pathogens in sick patients has greatly increased our ability to track cases of foodborne illness to the initial source in a timely manner. But responding to problems isn’t nearly as good as preventing them from happening in the first place.
The Space Race
It’s important to make sure that astronauts don’t get food poisoning when two or three of them are crammed into a space capsule for weeks with diapers and no doctor. Initially, NASA set strict limits for microbial numbers and rigorous testing requirements that had to be achieved before food would be approved for the space program. Hardly any food passed these standards. After throwing a lot of food away, NASA decided that ensuring food was safe after it had already been produced wasn’t going to work. The food production process itself needed to be improved.
They found the solution in the rocket-building manual. Early rockets could not be fixed in mid-flight, so everything had to be assembled perfectly and function properly every single time. That meant paying extremely close attention to every detail of the rocket manufacturing process. NASA worked with the Pilsbury company to adapt that prevention-based approach to space food production. They identified every point in the production process where food could potentially be contaminated, developed effective ways to prevent or control those potential contamination points, monitored them continuously and kept meticulous records. This process worked. No NASA astronaut has ever gotten food poisoning in space.
What’s Changed
The leading food safety concern in Canadian beef is Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) like E. coli O157:H7. These bacteria were first detected in Canada in the early 1980s, and cases of STEC-associated human illness generally doubled every year throughout that decade. STEC don’t cause disease in animals, so there are no lesions to look for at slaughter. Bacteria are invisible to the naked eye, and it only takes 10 STEC cells to cause an infection. Random testing is an ineffective way to find an invisible needle in a haystack.
So, when the first big STEC outbreak killed four children and infected 732 other US consumers in 1993, North American regulators and the food industry responded by adopting and implementing NASA’s approach to food safety. The critical control points they identified and solutions they developed to address potential food safety hazards have essentially eliminated STEC from beef carcasses (i.e., hide-on carcass washes, skinning and evisceration procedures, carcass and trim sprays, temperature control, sanitation of conveyors, cutting equipment, gloves). In the late 1990s, E. coli O157:H7 infections affected eight in 100,000 Canadians. That number dropped to four in 100,000 by the early 2000s and to one in 100,000 by 2010. NASA developed the principles, but the specific solutions that have proven effective for beef processing plants were developed by food safety researchers.
Where We Are Now
Prevention-based food safety systems are very effective when they’re implemented and operating properly, but pathogens still sneak through from time to time (which is why ground beef needs to be cooked to 71C°). Researchers suspect that bacteria are hiding in hard-to-clean areas, establishing colonies called biofilms that resist pressure washers, and periodically release pathogens that may contaminate beef as it moves through the plant.
So, What Does This Mean to You?
Food safety underpins consumer confidence and demand for Canadian beef. Canada’s researchers develop effective solutions that help to prevent food safety problems from arising, and the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off you pay helps fund their work.
The Bottom Line
We learn, the more we know, and the better we can do. Yesterday’s research underpins today’s safe beef. Today’s research will help avoid problems tomorrow. Canadian researchers are currently studying biofilms, and what they’re learning goes beyond food safety. It also has implications for on-farm biosecurity and animal health. Stay tuned for more.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Travel Safe: Stop Foot and Mouth Disease at the Gate🎙️
As Canadians are planning vacations and welcoming visitors to their farms, everyone —both those working on and visiting farms— are part of keeping Canada free of foreign animal disease such as Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD). For beef cattle producers, travelling safe involves knowing key information before returning to Canada. A few of these guidelines include:
Before you travel:
Inform Canadian Border Services of your travel plans.
Know the FMD status of the region(s) you will be travelling to.
Avoid direct contact with livestock and wild animals.
Do not purchase or bring back any meat or animal products.
Clean and disinfect footwear and clothing regularly.
Leave behind any items that cannot easily be disinfected.
When returning to Canada:
Declare to Canadian Border Service agents when you have travelled from a farm or high-risk location internationally or will be returning to a farm.
Declare all food products to Canadian Border Services and leave leftover food from flights or overseas airports on the plane.
Avoid contact with livestock for five days after returning from any country.
Avoid contact with livestock for 14 days if returning from a country that does not have an FMD-negative status.
Clean and disinfect all belongings, especially shoes, gear or tools that have been in contact with soil.
Proactive biosecurity measures—including following travel guidelines—is critical in the Canadian feedlot industry, a finely tuned but highly complex system with countless moving parts. A single lapse in biosecurity, such as a visitor or farm worker not following recommended protocols, could introduce a foreign animal disease into this densely populated cattle sector. If that happens, the consequences would be swift and severe.
“Every day is going to make millions of dollars of difference,” says Melissa Downing, director of regulatory and sustainability for the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association. “Fortunately, the industry is well-equipped with traceability tools like logbooks that track who has entered facilities and when, along with detailed records of animal movements. Still, the best defense remains prevention.”
This highlights the need to:
Keep disease out by implementing and enforcing biosecurity protocols including cleaning and disinfecting protocols for footwear, gear, tools and vehicles.
Footwear can easily carry pathogens from one location to another, making thorough cleaning and disinfecting of boots an essential practice.
Trailers used for transporting livestock can harbor pathogens if not properly cleaned. Keep transport vehicles free from contaminants by following transport cleaning protocols.
Recognize symptoms early: Educate employees on the visible signs and symptoms of disease.
Halt the movement of animals, equipment and people at the first sign of trouble.
Report to your local veterinarian if you suspect any foreign animal disease in your herd.
When travelling, beef producers can keep their herds safe by understanding the risks and implementing biosecurity practices as well as educating those who may visit their farms as international guests or foreign workers. Planning ahead and having protocols in place will result in safe travel for all.
A collaborative effort between the BCRC and Animal Health Canada (AHC) is currently underway ensuring that prevention and emergency response resources are being tailored specifically to the needs of Canadian beef producers.
Animal Health Canada is a not-for-profit corporation jointly funded by its members, which include federal, provincial and territorial governments, industry organizations and other partners working in animal health and welfare in Canada. AHC works to bring groups within Canada’s livestock industry together to keep Canada’s farms healthy. As an organization that promotes an understanding of the various roles and responsibilities within the livestock industry, they provide resources to ensure preparedness in the case of emergencies.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Understanding Yardage Costs in Cow-Calf Operations 🎙️
Have you ever wondered where your money goes during the winter-feeding period? Feed costs are easy to spot in a beef cattle operation, but what about the other expenses quietly chipping away at your bottom line? This is where yardage comes in—it is a crucial part of managing winter feeding costs in cow-calf operations.
What is Yardage?
Yardage refers to the overhead and non-feed costs incurred while maintaining cattle during the winter-feeding period. These costs include day-to-day expenses such as labor, equipment and building maintenance, fuel, utilities, manure handling and other general expenses like farm taxes and accounting fees. They also include non-cash costs such as machinery and facility depreciation, which represent the graduate loss of value in assets over time.
Yardage is typically expressed on a per-head per-day basis.
Why Does Yardage Matter to a Beef Producer?
Yardage may not grab attention like feed costs, but it significantly impacts profitability. These costs, especially non-cash costs like depreciation, often remain unnoticed but can erode profitability over time. For example, underestimating yardage may lead a beef producer to assume their operation is more efficient than it truly is. Ignoring yardage also makes it difficult to identify areas where costs can be optimized. For example, the exclusion of machinery maintenance and repair costs may make the cow-calf enterprise look more profitable than it is.
Using Yardage Insights for Better Decision-Making
Yardage is more than just a line on a spreadsheet—it’s a key component to understanding and controlling costs and can be a powerful tool for improving financial outcomes. Here are some examples:
Pinpoint cost driver: Identify the most significant contributors to yardage and pinpoint opportunities for savings.
Evaluate resource utilization: Determine if equipment and facilities are underutilized or can be used for other farm tasks.
Explore alternatives: Yardage insights can highlight opportunities to lower non-feed costs through alternative feeding methods.
Assess economies of scale: Knowing yardage costs can help assess whether expanding the herd could lower costs per head. Overhead costs are often considered fixed because they don’t change significantly with the size of the herd—up to a point. This means that increasing the herd size can spread these costs over more animals, reducing the per-unit expense and improving cost efficiency. However, as the herd grows beyond the capacity of existing resources, additional expenses for equipment or labour may arise.
Keeping Track of Yardage
Accurate yardage calculations start with diligent record-keeping. Keep detailed records of cash expenses, such as utility bills, equipment maintenance costs and labor hours.
Many overhead costs are incurred at the whole-farm level, making it necessary to allocate these costs across different enterprises and production stages to calculate yardage accurately.
Overhead costs include machinery maintenance and repairs, building repairs, utilities, insurance, property taxes and salaries.
For farms with multiple enterprises (e.g., cash crops and cattle), allocating whole-farm costs to the cow-calf winter-feeding period can be complex but essential. Various methods can be used for this allocation:
Time-based allocation: For assets like machinery or facilities, costs can be divided based on the proportion of time these resources are used for winter feeding.
Revenue-based allocation: It can be difficult to track or estimate the use-time of each fixed asset used on a diversified farm. In this case, costs can be divided based on the cow-calf enterprise’s share of total farm revenue. For instance, if the cow-calf enterprise generates $40,000 in revenue and the crop enterprise generates $60,000, the total farm revenue is $100,000. The cow-calf enterprise’s share is 40%, so 40% of overhead costs would be allocated to it.
Alternative methods: Costs can also be allocated using the percentage of gross margin or total expenses contributed by each enterprise. For example, if the cow-calf enterprise incurs 45% of the total farm expenses, 45% of the overhead costs would be allocated to it.
Introducing the BCRC Cow-Calf Yardage Calculator
The Cow-Calf Yardage Calculatoris designed to help producers estimate their yardage by providing a clear template and streamlining the calculation process. It requires data input on herd size, winter feeding days, whole-farm cash overhead costs and the values of machinery and buildings allocated to the cow-calf winter-feeding period (Figure 1). This tool calculates the total yardage cost, including a breakdown of cash expenses and depreciation on machinery and buildings (Figure 2).
Figure 1: Cash overhead costs used in yardage calculations Allocation can be based on the time each piece of equipment is used for cow-calf winter feeding or based on the percentage of total farm revenue, gross margin or total expenses contributed by the cow-calf winter-feeding period.
Figure 2: Total yardage for cow-calf winter feeding
In this calculator, non-feed variable costs such as veterinarian services, medicine and bedding — are treated separately from yardage. However, they can be entered in a supplementary section to calculate the combined total of yardage, bedding and veterinary and medicine costs (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Yardage and non-feed variable costs, including veterinary and bedding costs
While yardage is commonly expressed on a per-head per-day basis, the calculator also provides results in cost per Animal Unit Day (AUD) when animal weights are entered. Production cost and feeding capacity can vary significantly with animal size. Yardage on a per AUD basis helps allocate overhead cost or shared resources based on cattle size or type. This approach is useful when calculating profits, as both costs and revenue can vary with cattle size and type. For example, a larger 1,500 lb cow may have a higher yardage cost but could also wean a heavier calf compared to a smaller 1,300 lb cow. Calculating yardage per AUD also provides a standardized measure for comparing costs across farms with different herd compositions or within the same farm as herd composition or cattle size shift over time (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Summary of yardage for cow-calf winter feeding on a per-year, per-head, per-day and per-animal-unit-day basis
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-gH2Hv7PfmE
Bottom Line
Understanding yardage is vital for identifying inefficiencies, managing resources and improving profitability. By tracking yardage, producers can better navigate challenges and create opportunities for growth.
Canfax Research Services. “Cow-Calf Yardage.” Accessed Jan. 8, 2025.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Small Steps, Big Gains: How Starting Slow Leads to Grazing Success 🎙️
This article is one of a series of case studies on forage beneficial management practices from Alberta Agrisystems Living Lab and Canfax. It is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission.
Rotational grazing can mean different things to different people. This Beneficial Management Practice (BMP) is often adopted at varying levels of intensity, depending on timing and amount of precipitation, water source or labour availability. Rotational grazing can offer many benefits, including a more evenly grazed field, enhanced soil health, improved water quality and preserving the productivity of your pastures. Rotational grazing systems can also offer more options in dry conditions, but back-to-back droughts, water availability, fencing and labour can make implementation of this BMP a challenge.
Three Alberta producers have shared their journeys around the adoption of rotational grazing and the challenges they have overcome to be successful. They hope that by sharing their stories other producers can gain insight and knowledge from their experiences:
Key Takeaways When Considering Rotational Grazing:
Start slow: Dividing a continuously grazed pasture into two sections and allowing one half of the pasture to rest is a good start. Seeing improvements in pastures can take time, and depends on stocking densities, rainfall, and length of rest before plants are re-grazed.
Build a system around the water source: When building a rotational grazing system, keep your water source top of mind, either with a portable solar water system with portable fencing or a central water source with surrounding permanent paddocks.
Start with temporary fencing: Rather than immediately implementing permanent fencing, temporary fencing can be a short-term cost-saving measure and allow for greater flexibility.
Planning Fields Takes Time
Photo courtesy Jill Burkhardt
Kelly and Jill Burkhardt started operating a fifth-generation farm in the mid-2000s, starting with a small cowherd and background operation. Located between Wetaskiwin and Camrose, Alberta, they now raise a mix of cow-calf, background and crop enterprises. They have tripled their herd to 175 head of mature cows, and their land base has expanded with additional rented acres. They have tripled their backgrounding operation and doubled their grain land. The expansion helped them achieve their goal of staying full-time on the farm. Kelly and Jill both have degrees in range management; together with schooling and experience, they are extremely knowledgeable in pasture and grazing management.
The Burkhardt’s have had rotational grazing as a part of their operation since the beginning. Kelly built some fences for their rotational grazing setup on one of their quarter sections while he was still in school.
All their rotational grazing systems have a permanent perimeter fence with portable fencing to split up paddocks. Typically, Kelly and Jill are understocked when grazing. Therefore, they do not worry about having enough grass in dry years. “We always say that we’re here to grow grass, not beef.”
Photo courtesy Jill Burkhardt
Through the years, they have increased the productivity of pastures. Their rotations are guided by grass growth, and Jill describes this as the “art of range management.” They often rely on the height of the grass. For example, if they graze down to three inches, they will wait to graze that section until the growth is back to five or six inches in height. Pastures and timing of grazing vary year to year, and it takes time to get to know how quickly grass will regrow after grazing.
Recently, Kelly and Jill implemented an adaptive multi-paddock grazing system for the Alberta AgriSystems Living Lab in an existing field that had not previously been incorporated into their rotational grazing system. This parcel of land was not continuously grazed but was not part of their intensive grazing system either. Previously, they had two smaller sections of about 20 and 60 acres in this field, rotating from one to the other to give them rest. External financial support was utilized to install temporary electric fencing.
Photo courtesy Jill Burkhardt
They spent time reviewing a map of the land base and trying to figure out a fencing and water system. The field runs along a lake adjacent to their neighbours’ quarter that also runs alongside the lake, and they had to get a solar water system to make the rotational grazing system work. Building their rotational grazing system around a water source was challenging but necessary. Each paddock is pie-shaped, leading to the portable water trough. “To get water, we just move the fence around the trough, giving them access.” They also have the option to move the water trough between all their rotational grazing fields for future rotational setups.
Kelly and Jill advise producers to “think outside the box, and don’t get too stuck in what everybody else is doing.” Implement rotational grazing slowly to let your land adjust, even if it only breaks a continuous grazing section into two pieces. That way, you are still helping the grass and letting it rest and recover. This way, you don’t burn yourself out. New grazing systems take time to adjust and see improvements.
Top Tips
Think outside the box: When designing your rotational grazing system, it does not have to look like others you have seen.
Be patient: It takes time to see improvements.
Permanent and Temporary Fencing
Assar Grinde and his family run about 300 cow-calf pairs in a rotational grazing system, first established by his father in the 1980s. His father was a big believer in rotational grazing and joined the Grey Wooded Forage Association in the 1980s, which helped him learn about rotational grazing practices and how to set up his system. Assar’s father originally started by strip grazing with yearlings.
Assar set up 30 permanent paddocks ranging in size from 10 to 20 acres using a single-wire high-tensile fence for a long-term rotational grazing setup, along with temporary fencing for more intensive grazing. The single large pasture allows for the ease of cattle movement to each paddock without having to haul them to new pastures. A great advantage is having fewer herd groups and close paddocks to move cattle to for grazing. He keeps their cow-calf pairs in one group, saving on labour, and has a separate group of replacement heifers. The advantage of keeping the replacement heifers separate is that it allows them to breed their heifers with a selected heifer bull.
They save certain areas to have stockpiled grass available each year for calving (between late April and early June). Near the end of June, when the last few cows are finishing calving, cattle are placed into the rotational grazing system. They usually complete about two rotations on all their grazing land each summer. In a typical year, Assar moves cattle every three to four days. This is a faster rotation but allows for greater rest periods for grass recovery. Assar explained that he grazes the grass to about half its length before taking the cattle off and allowing it to regrow back. If regrowth is slow, he will leave cattle in some paddocks longer to allow the other paddocks time to regrow. Also, as fall nears, he will leave cattle in grazing sections longer, allowing cattle to graze more.
Photo courtesy Assar Grinde
A recent addition to their rotational grazing system was the creation of paddocks within 290 acres of pastureland with some brush cover. It was originally nicknamed the “holiday pasture,” to allow them to be able to leave the farm knowing that the cattle would have sufficient grass. Previously the pasture was used to provide 12-14 days of grazing, but Assar has since converted it to match the existing rotational grazing system.
Assar explained, “So this piece that we did for Living Labs, it has a creek running north to south through it which we used for water. We did two or three east-west fences, and I added permanent single-wire, high-tensile electric on either side of the creek.” Rather than going through the whole creek valley as a continuous grazing parcel, the separated paddocks allow for greater rotation and rest.
Tumblewheel fence for rotational grazing; photo courtesy Assar Grinde
Assar noted that if a producer rents or owns land in smaller sections and multiple locations, this creates challenges for rotational grazing. This adds to the costs of rotational grazing through labour and fuel to haul cattle and can impact adoption of more intensive rotational grazing systems. Additionally, there will generally be longer grazing periods before moving cattle to the next pasture due to the time required to move between locations.
Since Assar has been doing rotational grazing, it has been difficult to see improvements in pasture health and growth when comparing year to year. Instead, improvements are more easily noticed by comparing them over a longer period. Pasture regrowth can be a limitation in years with poor moisture. The year’s rainfall will greatly impact the success of a new or more intensive rotational grazing system.
Overall, their rotational grazing system allows them to have more cattle on their current land base. Assar advises producers to base their rotational fencing design on the central water source. Additionally, having pre-fenced paddocks helps with a long-term rotational grazing system to limit the time needed to set up and take down fencing. As Assar stated, “There is some value in installing only certain permanent fences the first year.” When first setting up a rotational grazing system, you can then utilize both permanent and temporary fences to adjust grazing rotations from year to year.
Top Tips:
Vary field sizes: Paddocks of different sizes allow for flexibility in grazing durations which can be matched to forage growth or other time commitments.
Mix permanent and temporary fencing: This can help maintain the desired rotation, while still providing flexibility on field size and length of rotations.
Intensive Grazing for Uniform Grazing
Derek Friend, located in Central Alberta, has recently shifted from a continuous grazing system to an intensive rotation, moving cattle as often as every day. As the saying goes, “A good cattleman checks his herd every day,” to which Derek adds, “why not move some fence while you’re out there?”
Derek has his herd intensively graze each paddock before moving them to get a uniform graze. Under his previous continuous grazing system, cattle would have time to pick and choose the best plants and ignore the less desirable ones. Under this frequent rotation management, cattle do not have as much time to search for good bites and consume all available forage. This also creates some competition for the tastiest plants in each paddock, increasing the grazing speed. Derek noticed his herd gradually became more docile after implementing this more frequent rotation because he was working with his cattle more often.
Temporary electric fencing is currently used for all paddocks, but he does have plans to add more permanent fencing, especially on paddocks that border roads. For the time being, the temporary fencing provides plenty of flexibility for moving the herd. The temporary fencing adds the flexibility of adjusting paddock size to be increased during busy weeks and decreased during the slower parts of the year when more time can be spent moving cattle. External funding was used to help finance fencing costs.
A trough fed by 2000 feet of ¾ inch pipe and moved to each paddock is enough to provide water for the herd. Derek estimated this watering system would probably be suitable for up to 200 head, but after that, a more rigorous water system would likely be needed, especially if the paddock size increased.
Because this more intensive rotation has only recently been introduced, a before-after comparison of cow body condition or calf weights is not yet known. While a more intense rotation does require more hours out in the field, Derek says the enjoyment of being out and moving cattle makes the change worth it.
Top Tips:
Find funding options for set-up costs.
Use rotational grazing to manage plant species and diversification in your pastures.
Click here tosubscribeto the BCRC Blog and receive email notifications when new content is posted.
The sharing or reprinting of BCRC Blog articles is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Selecting Replacement Heifers: Boosting Longevity and Return on Investment 🎙️
Whether beef cattle producers retain females from within their own herd or purchase them, replacement heifers come at a cost and are an investment into the future herd. Selecting the right animals and proper management is necessary to meet on-farm goals and improve the longevity of heifers as future breeding cows.
A recent analysis of 63 farms across Canada enrolled in the Canadian Cow-Calf Cost of Production Network estimated the cost of raising replacement heifers in 2023 to be an average of $2,904 per heifer, with a range of $1,905 to $3,806, which is estimated to be even higher in 2025. The largest expense of raising replacements being the lost opportunity of selling the heifer. Depending on cost of production, producers could pay back their investment in replacement heifers in five to seven years.
From a whole-herd perspective, total replacement cost depends on both the cost of raising each replacement heifer and the overall replacement rate. For the 63 benchmark farms, replacement cost accounted for an average of 8% of total herd costs in 2023. When the cost of all replacement heifers is distributed across the entire cow herd, the average replacement cost per cow is estimated at $139, with a range from $50 to $272 per cow.
Depending on cost of production, beef producers could pay back their investment in replacement heifers in five to seven years. Check out the BCRC’s Replacement Heifer Calculator to learn more.
To reduce these costs, producers can focus on management strategies including improved cow longevity. The more calves a female can produce in her lifetime, the better the return on her investment.
Copper-T Ranch in British Columbia and Dudgeon Cattle Company in Ontario illustrate best practices in replacement heifer selection and management. Copper-T Ranch prioritizes structural soundness, maternal traits and record-keeping to ensure predictable, long-term herd performance. Dudgeon Cattle Company emphasizes temperament, growth and durability, incorporating rigorous health protocols and a structured breeding program to maintain quality in their annual heifer sale. Both operations use data-driven selection processes to maintain herd efficiency and profitability.
Jamie and Bill Lloyd, Fraser Lake, BC
Bill and Jamie Lloyd; photo courtesy Copper-T Ranch
Copper-T Ranch is a Hereford seedstock operation located in north central British Columbia on the north shore of Fraser Lake that annually breeds approximately 100 females for April calving. The herd was established in 1988 by Trevor and Janice Tapp. Jamie and Bill Lloyd were hired onto the ranch ten years ago as cattle managers and are now also co-owners.
The purpose of the operation is to breed replacement genetics for themselves and other herds that will carry forward as a predictable and stable herd foundation. For breeding they use both natural breeding and reproductive technologies, including artificial insemination (AI). The use of AI “…allows us to bring in outcross and progressive genetics,” the Lloyds say. “We are very selective with our AI sires, as well as our walking bulls, not seeking the next top show bull or genetic trend but rather selecting for predictability, structure, performance and longevity.”
When it comes to herd sire selection, “being able to view photos of the dam and related females, as well as dam performance records, feet and udder structure before committing to a new herd sire is a must for us. The females behind our sires must be rock solid, and the type you want to have a whole herd of.”
For selecting replacement heifers there are a few traits that the Lloyds are looking for:
Feet: “If you have a herd with excellent feet, you want to keep that, it can quickly be lost.”
Disposition: “Easy to handle females are a must, calving is not to be a contact sport.”
Instinct/ Maternal Vigor: “…in both the female and the calf. If a first-calf heifer has a textbook birth but does not lick her calf off, write it down and cull her. That is not the type of female you want to be keeping and creating more of.”
Growth and Production Performance: “Replacement females selected must meet our guidelines, we implement a weaning weight and yearling weight cut-off. They must be at a desirable weight at breeding season and meet a frame size criterion; either extreme is undesirable.”
Calf Performance: “A first-calf heifer must go forward and wean a calf above our minimum expectation, proving she milks well enough and does so while keeping her condition and breeding back in a timely manner.”
The Lloyds say heifers are bred to calve 10 to 14 days ahead of the main cow herd to increase the probability for breeding back in the first cycle as young cows.
Learn more about reproductive momentum and breeding heifers on the BCRC’s Breeding Cow Management page.
Yearling heifers in a sheltered wind break; photo courtesy Copper-T Ranch
Record-keeping is also part of the selection process, according to the Lloyds. “We record dam udder and feet score, weaning weights, yearling weights, average daily gain (ADG), frame score and service date. We avoid retaining heifers that are bred late (third cycle) as we find the probability of them having breeding longevity is low.”
The Lloyds use records to evaluate cow or sire family genetic trends, which impact longevity. For example, daughters of a certain sire that are coming in open, or certain cow families whose daughters eventually come in open. “Once you find these patterns they can be quite predictable. Find genetic lines that work well in your environment,” the Lloyds say.
Optimal nutrition is key when feeding replacement heifers to ensure they are ready to turn out to breed at a proper weight and overall health. The Lloyds also stress the importance of not overfeeding since this can negatively impact fertility. “Other than being preg-checked in the fall, her place as a mother cow starts here, and she must maintain her condition on a cost-effective feed program in our mature cow herd.”
When it comes to making the final cuts for replacement heifers, the Lloyd’s suggest:
Make a written plan. Written guidelines or cut-offs will help you stay focused and sell or cull females that are not going to be the type of female that will work long-term in your herd.
Be very strict with culling. Animals that do not make the cut will only cost more to maintain.
Never give a second chance. If a female is open, even if she’s your best heifer, ship her!
Place a high importance on mineral and vaccination programs.
Brian Dudgeon, Dobbinton, ON
Brian, Kim, Owen, Grace and Kylie Dudgeon; photo courtesy Dudgeon Cattle Company
Brian Dudgeon and his family own and operate Dudgeon Cattle Company in Dobbinton, ON, east of Lake Huron. Each year the family produces “The Top Cut” heifer sale, the largest bred heifer sale in Ontario, selling over 200 head. They currently have a 200-cow herd with 50 of these being purebred Black Angus cows. Their top heifer calves are entered into their sale program. The remaining calves are backgrounded and finished in their feedlot. They also purchase 300-400 heifers in Alberta and Saskatchewan to raise using their replacement heifer protocols with the intent to fill the sale catalogue.
Within their own herd, the Dudgeons value “longevity, practicality, durability, above-average growth at weaning age, thickness, temperament, structure, proportion, feminine, carcass weight, raise big calves for the feedlot, good frames and length.”
When selecting bulls for breeding to replacement heifers, they aim for expected birth weights in the 60-80lb range while also placing high value on temperament. “We work with these animals a lot, so the ones that are getting away from you we pull out; anything that is nervous is pulled from the sale pen.”
“The Top Cut” bred heifers; photo courtesy Dudgeon Cattle Company
To make the sale catalogue, the replacement heifers must have the required traits, “thickness in the butt end, performance and milk,” the Dudgeons say, adding that they “don’t chase fads and keep the commercial guy in mind so everyone can make a profit at the end of the day.”
They also rely on record-keeping to assist with selections. “If a heifer has been pulled due to a health treatment, depending on what the health issue was, the heifer may not have the longevity we’re aiming for, or she may not breed. If that is the case, she doesn’t go into the sale.”
Photo courtesy Dudgeon Cattle Company
Prior to breeding, the heifers are fed a Total Mixed Ration (TMR). “We feed a balanced TMR that is slightly higher in energy than a backgrounding ration. The goal is to get the heifers to 900 lbs or better when they’re bred.” To help keep heifers organized for the sale, the Dudgeons use a coloured ear tag system.
Effective replacement heifer management requires a balance of careful selection, record-keeping and proper nutrition. By focusing on structural integrity, temperament, maternal instincts and overall performance, producers can improve herd longevity and financial returns. For producers looking to enhance their replacement programs, a focus on genetics, herd health and strategic culling can make a lasting impact on their investment.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Icebergs and Native Forages - What You Can’t See Can Sink You 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the April 2025 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
In April 1912, the RMS Titanic sank off the coast of Newfoundland after an iceberg tore a hole in her hull 25 feet below the waterline. Only a tenth of an iceberg is visible above the water; most of it lurks beneath the surface. Forage plants are similar: how things look on the soil surface may not reflect what’s happening further down.
Forages use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into plant sugars that drive plant growth. They can only do this if the roots can absorb enough water and minerals from the soil. You’ve probably seen old pictures of a healthy grass plant with enormous roots extending deep into the soil, and overgrazed grass plants with shallow root systems.
With drought a recurring reality in many regions, you might wonder what affects pastures more – the drought or overgrazing during drought? Dr. James Cahill and co-workers at the University of Alberta studied how grazing season and intensity affected forage yield and root mass under drought conditions (Differential sensitivity of above- and belowground plant biomass to drought and defoliation in temperate grasslands; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108660).
What They Did
This team collected data at seven predominantly native grassland sites in Alberta representing a range of average annual precipitations (Gem, 312mm; Onefour, 318mm; Oyen, 321mm; Twin River, 358mm; Kinsella, 401mm; Sangudo, 492mm; Stavely, 533mm). Extreme drought was imposed by installing transparent rainout shelters over half the plots to divert nearly half of the precipitation during the growing season. Plots were clipped instead of grazing, because cattle would have demolished these shelters.
Five different clipping treatments were designed to represent different grazing intensities and timings. The control treatment remained unclipped in June and September (None/None). The Heavy/None treatment was clipped heavily in June (to 3cm stubble height) but not in September. The None/Heavy treatment was not clipped in June but heavily clipped to 3cm in September. The Light/Heavy treatment was clipped to a 7cm stubble height in June and 3cm in September to mimic light early-season grazing followed by heavier grazing after vegetation growth slows. The Heavy/Heavy treatment was clipped to a 3cm stubble height in both June and September.
The combination of two rainfall treatments and five clipping treatments allowed them to test grassland responses to 10 different grazing management and moisture scenarios. Each of these 10 combinations was replicated four or five times at each site. Treatments were imposed during the 2017, 2018 and 2019 growing seasons.
After three years, total above-ground forage production was measured by harvesting a portion of each plot to ground level in July, and 15cm deep soil cores were collected to measure root mass.
What They Learned
During the three years of the experiment, natural rainfall was consistently lower than normal at the driest sites (Gem, Onefour, Oyen and Twin River) but above normal in at least one out of three years at the Kinsella, Sangudo and Stavely sites. The rainout shelters imposed historically harsh or near record drought conditions at all sites.
Effects of drought:Extreme and prolonged drought did not significantly reduce forage productivity or root mass on its own. Native grasses are adapted to the environmental challenges that nature brings.
Effects of heavy grazing in spring vs. fall:Clipping plots heavily once in June did not affect forage yield compared to a single heavy defoliation in September regardless of moisture, but early clipping was more harmful to the roots, particularly under drought conditions. The Heavy/None treatment reduced root biomass by 8% under normal rainfall and by 16% under extreme drought. This supports long-standing recommendations to avoid grazing native grasslands heavily, particularly early in the year.
Effects of increasingly heavy spring clipping: As June clipping intensity increased from None/Heavy to Heavy/Heavy, forage yields declined by 15% under both normal and drought conditions. Root biomass responded similarly, decreasing by up to 23% under extreme drought.
Location effects:Drought had consistent effects on root biomass regardless of how much precipitation each study site received. However, the additive effects of clipping during drought affected root biomass differently among sites. More severe clipping (especially in spring) damaged root growth the most when drought was imposed on grasslands with greater normal rainfall (Kinsella, Sangudo and Stavely).
So, What Does This Mean to You?
Heavy grazing may not depress forage productivity at first. But as roots shrink in size and depth, especially from spring grazing, plants gradually take up less water and nutrients. This will reduce their long-term ability to support above-ground forage growth.
Remember that it may take pastures some time to recover from being grazed through repeated years of severe drought. To regrow lost roots, plants need to transfer energy from shoots into roots. But they can only do this if they have enough leaves to begin with! That’s why heavy, early-season grazing should be avoided.
The finding that forages acclimated to higher rainfall areas may be more susceptible to heavy grazing during drought is important for Canada’s wetter regions. Grasslands may be less adapted to drought in regions where drought is less common, and more heavily impacted when it occurs. A moderate drought in a region that normally sees more rainfall may be more damaging than a moderate drought in a normally dry region. Careful grazing management is important everywhere, regardless of what “normal” rainfall looks like.
Bottom Line
While native plants can tolerate significant drought, they can’t tolerate heavy grazing under drought, especially in spring. Neglecting what’s below the surface can get you into trouble with both forages and icebergs.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Boosting Herd Genetics: Artificial Insemination Brings Big Benefits to Small Beef Herds 🎙️
Genetic progress can be slow in beef cattle, but artificial insemination (AI) is a tool to help producers reach their herd genetic goals faster. That is the number one reason Brendon Crane immediately took advantage of this technology when he established Crane Cattle Company in Lorne Valley, Prince Edward Island, in 1990. The farm focuses on producing and finishing top-quality Hereford calves with their 30-head cow herd.
“As a small producer I couldn’t afford to buy those top-quality bulls that really fit with what I was looking to improve in my herd,” Brendon says, adding that “to improve the genetic base of your herd and be competitive, not just within a specific breed but also in the market, you need a different genetic base coming into your herd all the time.”
Figure 1: average percentage of cow-calf operations that used artificial insemination by cow herd size.
Although AI has been available for over six decades, it has not been widely adopted by Canadian beef producers. Results from the 2022-23 Canadian Cow-Calf Survey showed that 34% of producers with 50 cows or less used AI on their operations, with a trend for reduced usage with increasing herd size (Figure 1). Similarly, these small producers were more likely to AI a higher percentage of their heifers (62%; Figure 2) and cows (40%; Figure 3) compared to larger operations.
Figure 2: average percentage of heifers artificially inseminated among Canadian beef producers by cow herd size.
Figure 3: average percentage of cows artificially inseminated among Canadian beef producers by cow herd size.
There are many benefits to using AI, including greater calf crop uniformity, reduced disease transmission, a shorter calving season with synchronization, reduced heifer injury, lower bull maintenance costs, increased handler safety and enabling top sires to produce more offspring per year than would be possible naturally.
Increased Access to Genetics Without Increased Bull Power
Artificial insemination reduces the need for bull power on farm. Photo credit: William Stoneman
Genetic evaluation of beef bulls has improved considerably in recent years, making bull selection more objective and reliable. Moreover, sexed semen, expected progeny differences (EPDs) and the ability to select for specific traits identified through DNA markers now being available commercially increases the opportunities possible when using AI.
Will Stoneman, who owns and operates First Line Angus in Hagersville, Ontario, takes advantage of enhanced sire genetic predictability by bringing in semen from across Canada and the United States to create an animal balanced for both maternal and carcass traits. The 90-head operation consists of a purebred Angus herd, a purebred Simmental herd and a 40-head commercial herd. They also manage a small backgrounding program for their commercial calves.
“We sell a lot of bulls to commercial breeders who are finishing cattle as well, so they are looking for the carcass side of it,” Will explains. “In addition, AI allows us to not have the same number of bulls on farm, which is a huge win. With 90 cows, we would need to keep four to five mature bulls, which require additional facilities, management and labour.”
Brendon Crane owns and operates Crane Cattle Company in Lorne Valley, PEI. Photo credit: Ellen Crane
Like First Line Angus, AI has allowed Crane Cattle Company to increase genetic improvements within their herd by hand-selecting which cow families are bred to which bulls. This results in a consistent cow herd and calf crop.
“We focused on selecting sires to improve cow confirmation and temperament for a long time to develop a good, honest cow herd that works for our farm,” Brendon explains. “Now one of our goals is to breed more feed-efficient cattle. The cost of feed is always going up, so if you can reduce the amount of inputs, such as feed, the more profits you are going to have.”
Brendon reminds producers that “it may take two or more bulls and two to three generations to breed a specific trait out or in, so make sure you are choosing the right bull. And using AI gives you more flexibility to quickly change bulls to meet your goals.”
Timing of Insemination is Key to Success
The failure to detect estrous (heat) can be a costly problem with AI programs. Consequently, a successful program must begin with efficient and accurate heat detection.
Brendon Crane has been an AI technician for more than 20 years and emphasizes that the key to breeding based on natural heats is timing. Photo credit: Ellen Crane
Cows should be observed twice a day for 20-30 minutes at a time. Although the estrous cycle averages 21 days, it actually ranges from 18 to 24 days. Ovulation occurs approximately 24 hours after the beginning of standing heat. It has been shown that pregnancy rates can be improved when insemination occurs closer to the time of ovulation.
At Crane Cattle Company, all cows are bred with AI on the first breeding based on natural heats. Any cows that don’t conceive are turned out with a clean-up bull. Brendon has been an AI technician for more than 20 years and says the key to using natural heat is timing.
“Cows need to be bred 12-16 hours after standing heat. Many producers get anxious and breed too soon,” he explains.
The primary sign of heat is when a cow stands to allow a herd mate to mount. Secondary signs include attempting to mount other animals, chin resting, increased activity, clear mucous discharge from the vulva and swelling and redness of the vulva.
Breeding based on natural heats can be challenging. Amy Higgins, with Model Farm Angus in Quispamsis, New Brunswick, knows first-hand the impact of these challenges. She owns and operates the farm alongside her father Bob Higgins and focuses on producing purebred Black Angus bulls and replacement heifers for local purebred and commercial breeders.
“Cows need to be bred 12-16 hours after standing heat. Many producers get anxious and breed too soon.”
–Brendon Crane, Lorne Valley, PEI
“Where we have run into issues with natural heats is when we don’t know how long she has been in heat. Did she start at midnight or 4 a.m.? In these cases, timing can be off which negatively impacts conception rates,” Amy explains.
She also emphasizes the need to house animals in groups to allow for the expression of clear signs of heat. “We had a group of heifers that were being custom fed off site. They were housed in a tie-stall barn, which limited typical estrous behaviours such as riding or increased movement,” she says, “and this resulted in poor conceptions rates.”
This year they are looking into purchasing ear tags to assist with heat detection. This technology works to monitor changes in animal behaviours which could indicate distress or heat. Data is collected and transmitted directly to a computer or mobile device. There are several other heat detection technologies available including pedometers, tail head markers and electronic devices that record mounting behaviour.
Amy suggests producers looking to breed with AI based on natural heats first determine the availability of an experienced AI technician in their area. “If access to a technician is limited, using a synch program may make more sense to ensure timely breeding,” she says.
Estrous Synchronization
The Zoerb family has succesfully implemented fixed time AI programs on their operation. Photo credit: Rachelle Zoerb.
Estrous synchronization protocols have virtually eliminated the need for heat detection in AI programs and enable the insemination of cattle when the operator desires; hence the name “fixed-time AI.”
The advantages of fixed-time AI include reduced labour due to no time spent detecting heat and insemination occurs at a pre-planned time, which can result in increased pregnancy rates. Synchronization protocols are generally divided into those that are estradiol-based and those that are GnRH-based.
MR RancHers, located west of Delisle, Saskatchewan, is owned and operated by Rachelle and Micheal Zoerb, along with their three daughters Tessa, Erica and Heidi. Their herd of 25 cows includes commercial Angus and Simmental cross cows along with a purebred Charolais herd.
The farm implemented an estrous synchronization program when they began using AI during the 2023 breeding season. That year they bred 10 of their top cows and experienced great success with an 80% conception rate. The following year, they bred 20 cows (both commercial and purebred) in two groups of 10, bred seven days apart.
“The first round of 10, we had 100% conception rate with two sets of twins, so we were actually 120%,” Rachelle explains. “We weren’t so lucky with the second set of 10 as a snowstorm hit that day, adding extra stress for the cows. Although we still ended up with 60%.”
Rachelle stresses that executing an effective fixed-time AI program takes commitment, and it is important to adhere to the synchronization protocol, hormone handling and administration.
“It costs money; it is an investment in your herd. So, when you look at it that way, it makes sense to do your due diligence to ensure each step in the process is being done in the right order and being done properly,” she says.
Focus on Pre- and Post-Breeding Management
MR RancHers use AI to breed top-quality purebred Charolais and commercial cattle. Photo credit: Rachelle Zoerb
Management of cows prior to insemination is crucial for increasing conception rates. Fertility in an AI program is a product of female fertility, semen fertility, inseminator skill and timing of AI. It is vitally important to realize that a deficiency in any one of these components, or sub-optimal performance in two or more, will substantially decrease pregnancy rate.
“We like to have our cows on 4-6 lbs of barley grain morning and evening as soon as calves start hitting the ground,” Erica, with MR RancHers, says. “We also provide free access to minerals and salt a minimum of 30 days before insemination. The key is to ensure their nutrition is optimal and they are in good body condition.”
Erica adds that they pay extra attention to the heifers. “You want to make sure they have enough nutrition to sustain their own growth plus the growing calf.”
This year, the cows selected for AI are housed in a dry lot separately from the remainder of the herd which allows for closer management of the feeding program and reduces any extra energy expenditure for the cows. Animals are also managed with a strict herd health program and dewormed a minimum of 14 days prior to breeding.
Rachelle emphasizes that it is also critical to minimize stress post-breeding. “Our cows stay at the home site for a minimum of 45 days after breeding, preferably 60 days before they are hauled to pasture. This extra time reduces the potential for them to slip that calf.”
Artificial Insemination Offers Flexibility to Meet Target Markets
The cost for sexed semen can range from $20 to $60 in addition to the typical cost of $10 to $30 per semen straw.
Yearling bulls produced at Model Farm Angus are marketed through the Maritime Beef Testing Society Annual Breeding Stock sale which takes place the first Saturday of April. Requirements for this sale are for bulls to be born from December 1 to February 28, and each bull undergoes a series of reproductive performance tests.
To meet these requirements, they have recently started using sexed semen to increase the number of bull calves born in December. The cost for sexed semen can range from $20 to $60 in addition to the typical cost of $10 to $30 per semen straw.
“We aim for December-born bulls as they consistently pass the breeding evaluation tests prior to the sale,” Amy explains. “We’ve had bulls born in November, but we don’t really have a market for them because the test station won’t take them, and we don’t have the means of feeding them out. Similarly, bulls born in February are less developed and have more potential to fail the tests.”
Breeding programs and goals will look different for every beef producer. However, improvements in available technologies, such as sexed semen and estrous synchronization, increase the options available when implementing AI.
Top Tips for Successful Artificial Insemination
Minimize stress pre- and post-insemination. “Use low-stress handling methods and be calm.” –Rachelle Zoerb, Delisle, SK
Manage first-calf heifers appropriately. “First calf heifers are the hardest to get back in calf, so ensure you have enough energy in front of them to maintain condition.” — Will Stoneman, Hagersville, ON
Record-keeping is key! “Success and continuous improvement come from documentation pre-, during and post-breeding.” — Rachelle Zoerb, Delisle, SK
Hire an experienced AI technician. “A good technician has the experience to help make the process successful.” — Amy Higgins, Quispamsis, NB
Know your operation’s breeding goals. “Depending on the company you are going with for selecting a bull, you may have a list of over 300 bulls, which can get overwhelming to sort through. Have your breeding goals in mind to help narrow down your search.” — Will Stoneman, Hagersville, ON
Ensure a well-planned and implemented program. “Have a plan in place, follow protocol requirements and reduce animal stress.” — Rachelle Zoerb, MR RancHers, Delisle, SK
Have the proper facilities in place to use AI. Not having the necessary equipment is just a “recipe to get hurt.” — Will Stoneman, Hagersville, ON
Talk with your veterinarian and AI technician to develop a program that fits your farm. “Professionals can help set up a program that is right for your operation.” — Brendon Crane, Lorne Valley, PEI
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Polycrops: Challenges, Triumphs and Valuable Lessons from Beef Producers 🎙️
Polycrop forage blends have become a popular tool among beef producers to increase soil health, manage grazing, improve cow performance and enhance resilience to changing weather conditions. However, as with any farming practice, the results can vary based on location, weather and management strategies.
The practice of using polycrops, also known as cover crops, forage mixtures or cocktail crops, is intended to increase the diversity of plant species in a pasture. Increased plant diversity can enhance soil health, increase water infiltration, reduce fertilizer needs and provide higher quality forages for cattle.
One of the objectives of the Living Lab Central Prairies has been growing polycrops on producer operations and evaluating both the long- and short-term impacts.
The Living Labs program allows producers like Erika Stewart, John Griffin and Carmen Jackson to use polycrops on their operations, and they have encountered both successes and challenges with the practice. Their experiences, combined with insights from agricultural research, highlight the complexity of adopting polycrops and offer valuable lessons for others considering this practice.
The Living Lab Central Prairies is part of the Agricultural Climate Solution Program and integrates on-farm practices with research knowledge. The Living Lab Central Prairies is focused on preventing land conversion, managing grazing, promoting perennials and polycrops.
Carmen Jackson: Choosing the Right Crop to Meet your Goals
Carmen Jackson, who operates a farm southeast of Regina, Saskatchewan, takes a measured approach to polycrops. “You can’t just jump in without understanding the risks,” she advises. Carmen and her family manage 3,500 acres, including 900 acres of rented land, most of which is native grass, with a small portion (approximately 400 acres) seeded to forages for winter feeding.
When it comes to polycrops, Carmen emphasizes the importance of making small, deliberate steps when implementing new practices. “Even if things don’t go perfectly, you have to keep moving forward,” she says.
Saskatchewan beef producer Carmen Jackson examines cover crop blend.
Carmen and her family have been using polycrops for the last five years. They started after attending a workshop in Manitoba and have been experimenting with them since. “The most important thing I have learned, and that we did wrong the first year, is you need to understand the context that you are using polycrops for,” she says. She has seeded polycrops in multiple locations on her farm but points out that there are different goals, and each goal requires different grazing strategies.
For example, on one pasture the goal was to increase pasture biomass. Carmen noted it was a saline, low-yielding piece of ground they were trying to improve. For that pasture they seeded a polycrop blend and then did some late fall grazing, turning a group of cows out to allow them to both trample and graze the forage. The residual forage left behind was targeting added organic matter with the long-term goal of improving soil conditions.
In another pasture, the goal was a high-quality feed on which to background their bulls. This piece was cross-fenced, and bulls were moved through paddocks in late summer. This year Carmen hopes to be able to graze in both summer and regrowth in the fall.
Carmen works with a professional agrologist to build forage blends that meet the needs of operation, and chooses different blends based on the goals for the pasture and if they intend to graze or make silage.
“It’s probably more advantageous to come up with something that you think will work on the soil you have.” Carmen notes that she is more comfortable using a premade blend on good land but on land that requires soil improvements, she finds value in choosing crops that are tailored to their specific goals.
Carmen Jackson’s cattle swath grazing
When choosing forage blends for silage Carmen points out that “First and foremost, we have to feed our cows, so tonnage is my number one priority. I try to add in something to help with soil health, but it can’t take too much away from the total volume – it’s a bit of a dance, and you just need to adjust as you go.”
Economics, and knowing how her land performs also play a role in what Carmen chooses for a forage blend. She points out that in some of the poorer soil areas, yield is limited, and she needs to be conscious of what she spends on a mixture to make economic sense. With this mindset Carmen points out that even in the saline or other problem areas they may be able to spend a bit more on polycrops than a monoculture as they don’t use any fertilizer and there may be long term benefits.
Carmen acknowledges that polycrops may not always deliver immediate or dramatic results. However, she stresses that soil health benefits accumulate over time. “Sometimes, you just have to adjust it as you go,” she notes, indicating that experimentation is part of the learning process.
Erika Stewart: The Importance of Adaptation and Pivoting
The Stewart Family on their farm near Morse, Saskatchewan.
Erika Stewart and her family farm near Morse, Saskatchewan, and have recently started integrating polycrops as cooperators in the Living Lab Central Prairies. Their farm consists of primarily native grass with some cultivated land they use to put up winter feed for cattle. She notes the challenges that come with unpredictable weather, especially when drought conditions persist. “If moisture doesn’t come, it’s really hard to make cover crops work,” Erika explains. She also mentions the trial-and-error nature of polycrops management.
Erika is still working out how polycrops fit into their operation. In 2021, they experimented by growing small amounts of two different blends marketed by separate companies. In late May they seeded a combined 230 acres side by side and found that both did well despite drought conditions.
With that success, the next year they seeded 240 acres to a polycrop blend for silage. Once again it performed well. “We had gotten two-and-a-half, maybe three, inches of rain and had enough silage to make it through, so we were thrilled,” Erika says.
Unfortunately, they were not as successful the following year, despite having similar rainfall. “We had planned to swath graze it that year, but it wasn’t even worth driving the swather over. Instead, we fenced it into four paddocks, and I think we got about a week’s worth of grazing off it.”
Despite trying a drought-tolerant blend last year, they had similar results, as well as issues with weeds. “Weeds weren’t an issue when things were growing, but now, after two years of crop failure, it is a big problem,” she says.
For Erika, nitrates have also been an issue. “The brassicas that we used to improve soil health were great, but due to drought, when we did our feed test, the nitrates came back super high.” They were still able to salvage the feed by allowing the pasture to rest, then grazing in a small paddock with gates open to a perennial pasture with water. “That way the cows could go in and graze, but they didn’t stay in there since there was no water, and it forced them to come out and eat something else as well,” she says.
Complex polycrop mix with sunflowers on the Stewart farm
Even with having issues in the past couple of years, Erika thinks polycrops could still play a role in their operation. “We added some winter triticale to last year’s blend, so hopefully we will see that pop up for some early spring grazing to allow us to rest our perennials longer.” She also wants to try grazing the polycrops earlier in the season and using them as a high-quality forage during the breeding season.
Erika remains committed to experimenting with polycrops. She emphasizes that understanding the local conditions and being flexible with the approach is key. “You have to tweak things as you go,” she reflects, acknowledging the learning curve associated with integrating new practices into an operation. “Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s all part of the journey.”
John Griffin: The Importance of Context and Flexibility
John Griffin and his family have both irrigated and dryland near Central Butte and Bridgeford, Saskatchewan. Over the years they have transitioned from a purebred herd calving in winter to a commercial herd that calves in May. With the adjustment of their calving season, they have come to rely on swath grazing for winter feed. John has been experimenting with how to add polycrops into their system and has had both success and learning experiences.
Drought and grasshoppers resulted in complete crop failure the first year they tried polycrops, but being a part of the Living Lab Central Prairies gave John the opportunity to try seeding them again.
An oat and pea polycrop mix on the Griffins’ farm
John has been experimenting with both a commercially available complex mixture as well as a simple mixture with peas and a cereal. He uses a hoe drill with a two-sided gravity wagon to seed both mixtures.
“The two sides work great,” John says. “I put the peas in one side and the oats or barley in the other side, then just hand dribble in the complex mix on top of the barley for those fields.” He points out that the box drill is nice, as the seed cups can open to allow bigger seeds like the peas to get through.
Last year both grew well, but he noticed in the complex mixture most of the biomass was coming from the peas and oats. Based on that, and the higher cost of the complex mixture, John plans to proceed with a simple cereal-pea mix in the future.
Like Erika, John wants to use polycrops as a high-quality forage during the breeding season to improve his conception rates. “We have very productive spring pastures because we get snowmelt, but then it dries up and turns brown, so we don’t have a high-quality feed when we need it in August when the bulls go out.” This past year he turned the cows and bulls out onto the polycrops to graze during the breeding season.
In addition, John points out that research staff through the living lab are taking measurements on soil health which may have long term benefits for his pastures. “Maybe over time we will see benefits that I am not noticing yet, but, from a beef production standpoint, if I can get a few more cows bred at that time of year then they would be benefiting us.”
Talking to other producers who have used polycrops has been helpful but John highlights that taking your own climate into account is important. For example, he knows other farmers who have had a lot of success including turnips and other brassicas in their polycrop blends but, on their place, flea beetles decimate the plants before they can get going.
John has appreciated being a part of the Living Lab Central Prairies as it has given him an opportunity to test out research results on his own farm. He believes that while research provides valuable insights, it’s essential to understand the local context and conditions. What works well in one area may not necessarily be successful in another.
Saskatchewan Beef Producer John Griffin’s experience echoes the broader sentiment among producers: polycrops can be an excellent tool, but their success is highly dependent on factors like weather, species selection and management practices.
Research Insights: Starting Small and Choosing the Right Mix
Aklilu Alemu, a researcher with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and research lead for the Living Lab Central Prairies, recommends that producers looking to integrate polycrops into their operations should “start small and simple until you’re familiar with the practice.”
Selecting the right mix of polycrops is important, especially when moisture is limited. “If the moisture is not coming, the cereal component of the polycrop mix can still provide some biomass,” Aklilu explains. This strategy helps ensure that, even in dry conditions, producers can still benefit from the polycrop’s contribution to soil health and grazing.
Aklilu cautions that “field conditions are highly variable, and what works in one place may not work in another.” This aligns with the experiences shared by producers like John Griffin, who have found that what works in research trials doesn’t always translate directly to real-world farm conditions.
Aklilu says there are three things producers should think about when implementing polycrops:
Moisture is the number one factor that will influence success.
Start simple, and start small.
Start with at least 40% cereal in your first year, that way if other crops fail you should still have some biomass to salvage.
The Takeaway: Trial, Error and Adaptation
The experiences of producers like Carmen, Erika and John illustrate the unpredictable nature of integrating polycrops into a beef operation. While some years may yield impressive results, others may bring challenges such as pests, poor weather or suboptimal crop growth. The key to success lies in adaptability, local knowledge and a willingness to experiment.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the March 2025 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Calves are born with a completely naïve immune system. Unlike other species, cows don’t pass on any immune protection to their offspring during pregnancy. That’s why it’s so critical for calves to consume at least two liters of high-quality colostrum soon after birth, to give them some protection while their own immune system develops.
The calf’s developing immune system can learn to recognize and respond to disease-causing pathogens in two ways. It can learn the hard way – by being exposed to an infectious disease, surviving and responding more strongly the next time. But it’s better to learn in a safe environment. That’s what vaccines do.
Vaccines teach the immune system to recognize what particular pathogens look like so that it can respond more quickly and effectively if those pathogens are ever encountered in real life. Like any other teaching exercise, repeating the lesson helps it to sink in and establish a stronger memory. Vaccines are the same, so revaccinating or boosting strengthens the immune memory.
A recent study (Vaccine use in Canadian cow-calf herds and opportunities for improvement; 10.3389/fvets.2023.1235942) found that vaccination rates are on the rise. Over 85% of producers in the Canadian Cow-Calf Surveillance Network routinely vaccinate nursing calves against BVD, and over 90% vaccinate against IBR, BRSV and PI3. That’s good news. But less than half of producers provided a booster vaccination against any of those viruses.
Nilusha Malmuthuge (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Lethbridge) and Gleise Medieros da Silva (University of Alberta) recently completed a proof-of-concept project to determine how vaccine handling practices – including providing a booster – affected their effectiveness in calves.
What They Did
One-hundred-fifty calves were vaccinated against PI3, BRSV, IBR and BVD types 1 and 2 using a commercial five-way modified live viral vaccine (e.g., Express FP5) at spring processing. The calves were divided into five experimental groups at weaning. The control group was not boosted. The other four groups were boosted with the same vaccine, but the vaccine was handled differently. One treatment kept the mixed vaccine in a cooler and administered it within an hour. A second treatment kept the mixed vaccine in a cooler but administered it six hours later. The third treatment left the mixed vaccine at room temperature and administered it within an hour. The fourth treatment left the mixed vaccine at room temperature for six hours before administering it.
Blood samples were collected before the booster vaccinations were given. A second sample was collected a month afterwards. Serum antibody levels and virus neutralization tests were used to assess whether revaccination and vaccine handling affected the strength of the immune responses. They did not follow these calves to monitor whether they got sick or not. Doing that would have required thousands of calves and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
What They Learned
It’s important to follow the label directions when using vaccines!
Boosting matters.The protection provided by the initial calfhood vaccine doesn’t last forever. A month after the booster vaccinations were given, all four groups of boosted calves displayed a stronger immune response than the unboosted calves. In fact, those that weren’t boosted had lower immune responses than a month earlier. They would have had less protection against those viruses than the boosted calves.
Vaccine handling matters. Some vaccine antigens were less affected by storage temperature and mixing time than others, but vaccine handling methods clearly affected animals’ ability to mount a strong immune response against BVDV. Six to seven times as many animals failed to generate an immune response to BVD types 1 and 2 when mixed vaccines were kept at room temperature for six hours before they were administered compared to when the mixed vaccine was chilled and used within an hour.
Vaccines prepare calves for the germs they’ll encounter anyhow.The viruses in this vaccine are common in Canadian beef cattle. So, the calves would probably have been exposed and developed an immune response anyhow, if they survived. But that’s the point. Vaccines allow the immune system to “practice” in a safe environment, without needing to expose them to the actual pathogen and risk death, illness and reduced growth performance.
Bottom Line
Vaccines don’t eliminate disease. But, when used properly, they reduce the number of calves that do get sick and help ensure that those that do get sick, get less sick.
What Does This Mean to You?
If you aren’t vaccinating yet, start. Talk to your veterinarian about what diseases to vaccinate against, which vaccines to use, which animals to use them in, when to give them, how to store, mix and administer them properly and how to correctly calibrate, clean and maintain syringes. Nearly all vaccines need to be given twice to provide maximum protection.
Follow the label directions! If the label on the package insert is too small to read, a larger version can be printed from the Compendium of Veterinary Products. You can find that under the Producer Resources and Useful Links tabs at verifiedbeef.ca. Extensive vaccination resources also are available by searching for “vaccination of the beef herd” at BeefResearch.ca.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Utilizing Annual and Perennial Forages to Improve Productivity🎙️
This article is one of a series of case studies on forage beneficial management practices from Alberta Agrisystems Living Lab and Canfax. It is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission.
What can I do about low productivity pastures or increase my feed supply? Several beneficial management practices (BMPs) can improve pasture or feed yields, increase the proportion of desirable species in a forage stand, improve overall forage quality, or have beneficial impacts on soil quality. A variety of methods can be used to achieve these goals, such as grazing management, re-seeding, sod seeding, overseeding, utilizing different forage mixtures (for pasture or feed production), applying fertilizer/manure, and/or herbicide application. The benefits from using these practices may include increased yields, improved average daily gain, increased potential to retain soil moisture, more grazing days, reduced winter feed costs or impact of drought, and better body condition on cows.1
Three producers have shared their firsthand experiences with the following BMPs so that their insight and knowledge may help others looking to try these practices on their own operations:
Choose the right species and varieties for your region: The amount of moisture at seeding is critical for success, so choose plants that are suited for your region and rainfall/soil moisture levels. The Beef Cattle Research Council’s Forage U-Pick Tool can help with selecting species based on your field characteristics.
Use grazing as a tool: While it’s true that deferring grazing is an important step to allow seedlings to establish, in some instances increased grazing pressure can open space for new seedlings while maintaining some of the old stand. This may help avoid a lost grazing year.
Cut costs where you can: In each of these cases, machinery used for seeding and fertilizing was already owned by the operation. If custom seeding or fertilizing is required, this can increase costs substantially, and you may need to get more creative.
Intercropping Wheat and Italian Ryegrass
Susan Heather started an intercropping project on her farm near Nanton, AB, in 2023. The goal of this Alberta AgriSystems Living Lab Project was to reduce wind erosion, increase grazing days and capture more moisture during the three months the field would normally sit bare. The field sits on a reclaimed gravel site, and Susan wanted to do “just those little things to try and make it a little bit more productive” and add more organic matter.
The wheat was air seeded and Italian ryegrass was floated on the field the day after the wheat was seeded. The field was then rolled to prevent moisture loss and increase seed-to-soil contact. The intercrop was planted in an irrigated field. Wheat was silaged for feed for their finishing operation. Bred cows and heifers grazed the ryegrass in the fall. Susan felt that intercropping gave the ryegrass a “running start” so that it was ready for grazing shortly after the wheat was removed. Manure and urine from grazing returned nutrients to the soil and may reduce the amount of fertilizer needed in the future.
“It’s definitely a win for us, especially in a year when feed is so expensive.” – Alberta Beef Producer Susan Heather
The Heathers assumed the wheat crop yield would suffer because of competition with the ryegrass, but, to their surprise, they “saw an increase in tonnage off our Italian ryegrass with the wheat versus the check where [we] just had the wheat.” The addition of this field to the pasture rotation reduced grazing pressure on their native grasslands. A warm December in 2023 allowed grazing to continue well into January, significantly reducing winter feeding time and cost.
Irrigation was a key factor in the success of this project; however, some other local dryland producers have had success with similar intercropping systems. It’s important to consider your rainfall and soil moisture if you are considering intercropping, and it may be beneficial to consult with your local agronomist or seed representative. This is a BMP that may be useful for producers interested in gaining some additional grazing days from their crop fields, while also potentially reducing fertilizer use.
Top Tip
Have a clear goal in mind: This helps decide what tools to use and whether you are using the correct approach to achieve that goal. What are the specific improvements you want to see?
Tame Pasture Rejuvenation
Photo courtesy of Terri and Brad Mappin
In 2020, Terri and Brad Mappin wanted to improve a newly purchased piece of tame pasture on their farm near Byemoor, Alberta that hadn’t been taken care of. Described by Terri as “a hodgepodge of we’re not really sure what it was,” Brad used an air seeder after a few runs with discs to get a more consistent grass/legume mix. Unfortunately, Brad seeded too deep the first time around, and didn’t get much growth at all. After a few seasons of trial and error, and some timely rainfall, they got the thicker and healthier grass/legume mix they were hoping for.
A second pasture at the Mappin’s operation that had been degraded after a few seasons as a calving pasture. They heavily grazed until mid-June, disced, seeded, and fertilized. The heavy grazing reduced competition for the new seedlings while also keeping some pasture available for one more quick grazing pass later in the summer. A key was the speed of this pass, as Terri mentions, “I skipped them through there fairly quickly (1-2 days max) so that they didn’t get to those seedlings.” The fear was that if the cows got past some of the previous litter and into the seedlings, they’d overgraze the tender new growth and jeopardize the newly established plants.
The Mappins noticed increased calf weights because of the higher nutrition from the new stands, but a before- and after-rejuvenation comparison in terms of forage production was difficult because of drought conditions in 2021. However, they were able to keep a good stockpile of hay, and the rejuvenated pasture was still grazed the next year despite the dry conditions.
Top Tips
Be adaptable: Seeding is heavily dependent on moisture, so have seeding and grazing plans ready in the event of unfavourable conditions is key.
Don’t expect perfect results right away: If you can, have additional feed on standby in case the new stand doesn’t establish well, and be prepared for some trial and error until you find what works best for you.
Start small: Starting with partial rejuvenation project can spread out risk from drought, poor establishment, or slow new forage growth.
Forage Mixtures for Silage
Derek Friend switched to a 12-species forage blend for silage production in 2023 for his cow-calf operation in central Alberta. Previously, he planted a monocrop rotation of either barley, oats, wheat, peas, or canola on the field. The goal for this field was to find a silage blend that could balance lower inputs, rejuvenation the soil, and maintain acceptable yields. This new blend includes Italian ryegrass, radish, clovers, millet, forage rape, oats, other grasses, and barley as a base. Derek limited tillage on the field to a single disc pass instead of the typical 3-4 passes and seeded in May to make sure the warm-season species would not be caught in a late frost. No fertilizer was added either, so the total number of passes over the field was much lower than previous years.
Derek assumed the silage yield would suffer given the minimal tillage and lack of fertilizer, but, at about “10+ tons an acre,” the result was likely closer to an average yield than lower harvest he expected. This ended up being a great result while keeping fuel and machinery costs low. Although this blend worked on Derek’s operation, keeping expectations realistic and selecting species based on their ability to grow together are important factors for switching to these blends.
Maintaining Optimal Species Composition with Intensive Grazing
A strategy Derek uses to get the most out of his pasture and keep one species from becoming dominant is an intense, almost daily rotation for grazing. The move from a continuous summer grazing system to intensive rotational grazing, was done to keep all species in the pasture evenly grazed. Like the Mappins, it’s hard to compare body conditioning and average daily gain between years in the 2020s, but Derek has noticed his cows eating more from the competition for the best bites.
Top Tips
Reducing tillage intensity can be a cost cutting measure: While full tillage may produce a higher yield, it also adds costs and can be riskier if rainfall doesn’t arrive in the time and amount needed.
Use cattle to keep a good species mix: Targeted heavy grazing can prevent less palatable species from becoming dominant and giving paddocks longer rest times give more palatable species more regrowth before re-grazing.
1Omokanye, A., Yoder, C., Sreekumar, L., Vihvelin, L., & Benoit, M. (2018). Forage production and economic performance of pasture rejuvenation methods in northern Alberta, Canada. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 7(2), 94-110.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Responsible Antibiotic Use on Canadian Cow-Calf Operations 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the February 2025 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
In 2018, over-the-counter sales ended for the few antibiotics (like tetracycline) that were still available in Canadian farm supply stores. The new requirement for a “veterinary-client-patient relationship” (VCPR) before all antibiotics could be prescribed or sold was designed to ensure that the right antibiotics are used in the right animals, at the right dose, at the right time.
Dr. Cheryl Waldner and colleagues from the Western College of Veterinary Medicine have studied the early impacts of these changes (“Antimicrobial Use in Canadian Cow–Calf Herds,” doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10050366, and “Producer attitudes regarding antimicrobial use and resistance in Canadian cow-calf herds,” PMC10581348).
What They Did
They surveyed 168 Canadian producers in the Canadian Cow-Calf Surveillance Network in 2020 (a year after the regulatory change came into full effect). Participants were asked about what antibiotics they used to treat different classes of cattle, and how the regulatory changes had affected their operations. Responses were received from 146 producers, 67% from Western Canada and 33% from Eastern Canada. Since some Western producers had also participated in the earlier Western Canadian Cow Calf Surveillance Network, antibiotic use could be compared over time.
What They Learned
Nearly all cow-calf producers use antibiotics, but they don’t use them often. Nationally, 95% of producers used antibiotics in cows and calves. But only 9% of producers treated more than 5% of cows and only 12% of producers treated more than 5% of their calves.
Antibiotics were mainly used to treat lameness in cows (83% of producers), diarrhea in newborn calves (67% of producers), and bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in pre-weaned calves (78% of producers). But remember – very few producers treated more than 5% of animals for any condition. Overall treatment rates for all three diseases in Western Canada were the same in 2020 as in 2014, though fewer producers treated more than 5% of their calves for BRD in 2020 (17%) than in 2014 (29%).
Most producers (77%) reported no change in their access to antibiotics, 21% said antibiotics were less accessible and 2% said they had become more accessible. Most (63%) reported no change in antibiotic cost; a few (2%) said antibiotic costs had gone down, and 35% said prices had increased. Those who felt that antibiotics had become more expensive were also those who treated more than 5% of their calves before weaning.
Most producers (95%) reported that their antibiotic use practices had not changed since the regulations changed. A few (4%) said they were using less, and only 1% indicated they were using more. Nearly everyone (99%) said the veterinarian was their main source of information regarding antibiotics and appropriate antibiotic use (88%).
What has changed is macrolide use. Injectable macrolide antibiotics used by cow-calf producers include Micotil (and its generic counterparts Hymatil and Tilcomed), Draxxin (and its generic counterparts Increxxa, Lydaxx, Macrosyn, Rexxolide, Tulaven, Tulinovet, Tulissin), Zactran and Zuprevo. These antibiotics are also widely used to prevent and treat BRD in the feedlot. These antibiotics have always been prescription-only; they were never available over the counter. In 2020, 55% of Canadian cow-calf producers surveyed reported using macrolides. In the West, the proportion of producers using macrolides increased from 44% (2014) to 61% (2020), mostly to treat lameness in cows and BRD in calves before weaning.
Although more Canadian cow-calf producers used macrolides in 2020, tetracyclines were still used by more producers (58%) than macrolides (21%) to treat lame cows. 60% of producers used florfenicol (Fenicyl, Florkem, Nuflor, Resflor, Zeleris) to treat BRD in calves before weaning compared to 33% using macrolides.
Macrolides have become more popular for a few reasons. The requirement to obtain antibiotics from a veterinarian means that producers receive solid advice about which product is most appropriate for in any given situation. The recent proliferation of generic macrolide antibiotics has made them much more affordable and cost-effective. Finally, macrolides generally require a smaller dose and are a better fit for dart guns, crossbows and pole syringes. If initial antibiotic treatment failed, producers were more likely to consult with their veterinarian than to try a different antibiotic for diarrhea (74% vs. 71%) and BRD (68% vs. 46%). But they were more likely to try a different antibiotic (53%) than call the veterinarian (49%) when an initial lameness treatment failed.
Bottom Line
An ounce of prevention is still worth more than a pound of cure. Good nutrition and an appropriate vaccination program won’t completely prevent all disease, but they will reduce the number of animals that need antibiotics.
So, What Does This Mean to You?
Review your herd vaccination program with your veterinarian. New oral and intranasal vaccines can be given at birth to help protect against scours and BRD (BRD still needs a booster at spring processing). There is no effective vaccine available for any form of lameness, but footrot responds well to antibiotic treatment. If the first lameness treatment doesn’t work, don’t just switch antibiotics. That throws good money after bad, and the cause is not always infectious. Take advantage of your VCPR. Ask your veterinarian what you’re dealing with and how to treat it effectively.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
New forage varieties are helping fill gaps in the grazing season by allowing beef cattle to graze for longer each year, increasing forage quality in previously poor growing areas and providing high-quality winter feed.
Since pasture, hay and silage of perennial and annual forage crops provide most of the annual feed for beef cattle, producers need access to high-yielding, high-quality, and well-adapted varieties to improve the economics of production. However, knowing which forage variety will meet the needs of each unique operation and feeding scenario can be difficult. It may appear easier to stick with the forage variety you know and have been seeding for years, but are you missing out on positive benefits that can come from new forage varieties?
What Are Potential Benefits of New Forage Varieties?
Higher yield
New varieties are often developed to produce more, higher quality forage when compared to traditional varieties.
The amount of forage produced directly determines the animal production per acre. For example, increasing forage production on grazing land or pastures means higher stocking rates can be applied, and animal performance may also improve. Similarly, increasing yields on hay land or annual crops seeded for forage production increases the forage dry matter (DM) harvested and stored, and reduces the cost per unit of production. This equates to reduced winter feed costs per cow.
Improved quality
Quantity is often thought of when it comes to feeding beef cattle, but it is quality that truly matters. Forage quality is defined by the nutritive value of the forage or, in other words, the amount of available energy, protein, fiber, minerals and vitamins that forage provides when consumed by livestock. This concentration of nutrients directly impacts the performance (health and growth) of individual animals.
Quality Over Quantity
The concentration of nutrients (quality) in a forage directly impacts the performance (health and growth) of individual animals.
The various components of a plant, such as fibre, protein and carbohydrates, will impact forage quality differently. As an example, lignin, which is a structural component of plant cell walls, limits microbial digestion in the rumen, thus negatively impacting the digestibility of that forage. Increased concentrations of lignin in the growing forage crop will increase the percentage of indigestible forage DM during grazing or at harvest. These lower quality forages (higher fiber, lower digestibility) can reduce overall forage intake, which compromises animal performance. Selecting a low-lignin (higher quality) forage variety to include in your rotation can help to reduce this issue.
Enhanced palatability
The palatability of a forage is the combination of plant features or conditions that encourage livestock to consume that plant. Factors impacting this include texture, aroma, leaf percentage and sugar content. Essentially higher palatability means that animals like to eat that forage.
In extensive production systems, forage intake provides the energy needed for optimal cattle health and production (e.g., growth, milk production, reproduction). This means palatability becomes extremely important as the willingness of an animal to eat a forage will directly impact that animal’s performance – the more palatable the plant, the more the animal will consume.
One way that new varieties offer increased palatability is through increased leaf-to-stem ratio. The leaves are much more palatable and higher quality, compared to the plant stem. Thus, increasing the number of leaves per plant encourages higher levels of intake.
Palatability becomes extremely important as the willingness of an animal to eat a forage will directly impact that animal’s performance – the more palatable the plant, the more the animal will consume.
Reduced fertilizer costs
The goal of fertilizing forage crops is to decrease the per-unit cost of production. However, higher yields do not necessarily translate into lower costs or increased profits. Only when the value of the additional forage produced is greater than the cost of application does it reduce the per-unit cost of production and increase margins. Therefore, the profitability of fertilizing forage crops is highly variable and depends on the cost of the fertilizer, hay prices and regional soil and weather conditions.
Selecting the right forage variety can help reduce the need for fertilizer through development of varieties with more efficient fixing of nitrogen, increased biomass production per unit of nitrogen or increased drought tolerance.
Better disease or pest resistance
Disease and insects can have significant negative impacts on yield, quality, utilization by livestock and longevity of a forage stand. Minimizing these losses is vital to maintaining or increasing productivity.
There are some varieties of legumes and grasses that have been developed to be resistant to forage insects and diseases. Choosing these varieties can help to reduce the amount of pest treatment used in the forage crop.
Improved adaptation to regional conditions
Many regions of Canada experience unpredictable weather, including drought, severe flooding and harsh winters. In addition, some regions may have acidic soils, poor drainage or extreme weed competition. These conditions can lead to reduced forage yields, decreased quality and poor stand persistence, all of which limit the forage available for consumption by livestock.
Choosing a forage that is adapted to the conditions of the seeding site may be more effective than adapting the site to fit an appealing forage. Some new forage varieties offer an advantage in this regard. For example, heat-resistant varieties can extend the grazing season during the summer months. Similarly, varieties with increased resistance to drought stress are critical in maintaining grazing quality during dry periods.
How Do I Select New Forage Varieties
Key factors to consider when choosing a forage variety include:
Regional climate conditions (e.g., flooding, rainfall, growing season length)
Intended use of the forage (e.g., harvested feed, grazing)
Consider reaching out to local extension experts or agronomists in your region for insights into forage varieties adapted to your region.
It is also worth consulting with neighbours about what they are doing and what has worked on their operations.
Online tools, such as Forage U-Pick, can help farmers and ranchers from British Columbia to the Maritimes choose forages best suited to their fields, calculate seeding rates and manage forage weeds.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Practical Tools to Protect Canadian Livestock from Foot and Mouth Disease 🎙️▶️
Beef producers feel the responsibility of keeping their herds and those in contact with their cattle safe, and they appreciate practical tools that support their disease prevention practices. When it comes to biosecurity practices on beef cattle operations, limiting hazards and appropriately responding with good management are key in disease prevention. These practices ultimately protect the herd and the Canadian livestock industry from the animal health and economic impacts of foreign animal diseases, including Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).
To increase awareness of available tools for farmers and ranchers, a collaborative effort between the BCRC and Animal Health Canada (AHC) is currently underway ensuring that prevention and emergency response resources are being tailored specifically to the needs of Canadian beef producers.
Foot and Mouth Disease is a highly infectious virus that has serious consequences for the beef industry and populations of beef cattle and other cloven-hoofed animals worldwide, including severe economic and animal health impacts. Canada currently has an FMD-free without vaccination trade status and maintaining this status is the responsibility of all sectors within the industry.
Animal Health Canada is a not-for-profit corporation jointly funded by its members, which include federal, provincial and territorial governments, industry organizations and other partners working in animal health and welfare in Canada. AHC works to bring groups within Canada’s livestock industry together to keep Canada’s farms healthy. As an organization that promotes an understanding of the various roles and responsibilities within the livestock industry, they provide resources to ensure preparedness in the case of emergencies.
Everyday Biosecurity Practices That Protect Cattle
Daily habits go a long way to reduce or prevent the spread of disease. Understanding the every-day risks of introducing disease to a beef cattle herd helps protect the animals and the people who care for them.
Good management techniques, including vaccination protocols and animal husbandry to keep animals at a low risk of infection
Good hygiene practices, including working with animals with the least exposure to pathogens to the animals with the greatest exposure to pathogens
Quarantine protocols for animals leaving or entering the operation
Hygiene protocols for people, animals and equipment leaving or entering the premises
On a broader scale, the biosecurity measures you implement are essential to keeping the Canadian Livestock industry thriving and free of reportable diseases and trade-limiting diseases including FMD.
Foot and Mouth Disease Detection
In a new video, Chief Veterinary Officer for the Canadian Cattle Association Dr. Leigh Rosengren emphasizes the devastating nature of FMD and highlights the importance of vigilance and preventative measures. If FMD were to spread to Canada, it could lead to significant disruptions in the livestock industry, including trade restrictions, culling of infected and at-risk animals and substantial financial losses.
https://youtu.be/ZIDrYz7NcJs
The following are key messages on Foot and Mouth Disease detection and spread:
FMD is not a public health concern, nor is it a food safety issue. FMD is not related to “Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease” common in children.
The clinical signs of FMD include anorexia, depression, fever, lameness, reduced milk output, salivation, blisters and lesions on the mouth, teats and feet.
FMD can cause abortion and sudden death in neonates.
Foot and Mouth Disease can be spread by direct contact, in the air and on fomites.
Recognizing FMD early and preventing the movement of infected animals is critical.
Fomites are objects or materials which are likely to carry infection including trucks, footwear and service providers moving from one farm to another.
Foot and Mouth Disease Response
In part two of the video series, Dr. Rosengren and Canadian Beef Cattle Producer Miles Wowk explain how preventative measures, including biosecurity protocols and surveillance, are important to keep the FMD virus outside of Canada’s borders and the necessity for a rapid response plan to contain any outbreaks. It’s crucial for farmers, veterinarians and authorities to work together to prevent the introduction and spread of FMD.
https://youtu.be/7GVpb5ceZ_Q
Here are key messages Canadian farmers need to know to prepare and respond to Foot and Mouth Disease:
If you have a suspicion that FMD may have entered your herd, take immediate action. Stop all movement of animals and people on your operation and phone your veterinarian.
Veterinarians are aware of the reporting process and will notify the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
“Keep good records! What animals have come onto your farm? Where did they come from? What animals have left your farm? Where did they go?” — Dr. Leigh Rosengren
Travel to countries that have active outbreaks poses a risk to those returning to Canadian farms, so it is important to train all farm personnel on the importance of biosecurity and the specific measures to follow after travel. If international visitors will be on your farm, have a plan in place to prevent possible infection:
Wear disposable boot covers.
Prevent direct contact with cattle.
Vehicles should be washed and disinfected prior to coming on-farm.
Watch the consequences of the decisions made by Richard and Jennifer on their international holiday:
https://youtu.be/82UzaEqguWE?feature=shared
Additional resources created as part of this collaborative project between the BCRC and Animal Health Canada include:
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Bull sale season will soon be in full swing, meaning now is the time to determine the bull selection criteria and budget for purchasing your next herd sires.
Considering that a bull’s contribution to the genetic makeup of a beef herd in a single breeding season is more than a cow may contribute in her lifetime–a bull may sire 25 or more calves per year while the average cow produces fewer than 10 calves–selecting genetically superior bulls is the quickest way to improve herd genetics. But how do you determine which bull is right for your operation?
Match Your Breeding Program to Your Operational Goals
The first step in identifying which bull or bulls are right for your farm is to clearly establish both the long- and short-term goals of your operation. These goals, along with the management practices and infrastructure that fit those goals, will determine the breeding programs and genetics required to achieve them.
There are a variety of breeding programs available, and effective sire selection requires an understanding of the characteristics of your own operation and the genetics available for purchase. Intentionally aligning a bull’s genetics to your operation’s goals will contribute to enhanced revenue and reduced costs.
As an example, let’s look at three scenarios with different operational goals and what breeding program might be suitable for each:
George retains ownership of all his calves (steers and heifers) through slaughter. Because he doesn’t retain replacement heifers, a terminal crossbreeding system is probably best suited to meet his goals. Both two-breed and three-breed terminal crossbreeding result in 100 percent of offspring heterosis, leading to calves with higher growth performance.
For producers like Susan, who are selling their entire calf crop at weaning, increasing weaning weights is a primary focus. Choosing a crossbreeding program with high calving ease and the added benefit of hybrid vigour would likely be ideal for her operation.
Jeff retains replacement females for his breeding herd. To support his goal, he could focus on crossbreeding to develop F1 crosses that should result in higher reproductive efficiency and longevity. Alternatively, he could focus on outcrossing (breeding to non-relatives or distant relatives) within a single breed. This system can be used to maintain performance levels and restore lost performance due to inbreeding depression.
Focus on Traits That Matter to Your Operation
After your operational goals and breeding programs are determined, the next step is to evaluate the traits of importance.
Expected progeny differences (EPDs) have been available in the beef industry for decades and are a helpful tool when making selection decisions on desirable traits. Expected progeny differences can be used to estimate the difference between the predicted average performance of an animal’s future progeny and the average progeny performance of another bull. For example, a bull with a weaning weight EPD of +60 is expected to wean calves that are 20lbs heavier than a bull with a weaning weight EPD of +40.
Many EPDs exist, from calving ease and weaning weight, to ribeye area and marbling, to cow weight and stayability. The EPDs you focus on will be dependent on your operational goals.
With the variety of EPDs available, it can become overwhelming to determine the contribution of a potential herd sire to improving the traits of interest. By focusing on economically relevant traits (ERTs) you can narrow your selection focus to the EPDs that matter most for your breeding goals.
Economically relevant traits are those that are directly associated with a source of revenue or a cost. Not all EPDs represent ERTs – instead they use a related (or indicator) trait to estimate the ERT. For more information and examples of ERT versus Indicator traits, read the BCRC blog post Using Economically Relevant Traits.
Let’s revisit the farm scenarios from earlier:
Since George retains ownership of all of his calves through to slaughter and does not retain replacement females, emphasis should be placed on sires with favourable carcass trait EPDs such as postweaning gain, carcass weight, marbling, fat depth and rib-eye area.
With Susan’s goal of improving weaning weights to maximize profits when selling the calf crop at weaning, more emphasis should be placed on traits such as weaning weight and calving ease.
Since Jeff is retaining replacement heifers for his breeding herd, traits such as direct and maternal calving ease or stayability should be a top priority for bull selection.
In addition to individual EPDs, many genetic evaluations offer selection indices which combine several traits into one overall economic value for the animal. These are calculated by placing an economic weighting on individual EPDs to create a multi-trait selection model for different types of broad production systems (generally maternal or terminal). Differences in two animal indices is the expected average value differences of their calves.
Know Your Bull Budget Prior to the Bull Sale
The purchase of a bull is an investment in the long-term profitability of your operation. With prices ranging from $2,000 to over $20,000 per head, it is important to ensure that your investment is adding value in the right places while still working within your budget. Different bull traits will have different impacts on your bottom line. Saving money on a low-priced bull may cost you in the long run if it moves you further away from your operational goals.
The BCRC’s Bull Valuation Calculator is designed to provide an estimate of how much a bull is worth using individual on-farm numbers. The bull value obtained in the calculator is only an estimate and may not reflect the true breakeven price. However, this interactive tool can be used as a general guideline and demonstrates how changing different variables can affect the cost or value of a herd sire.
Setting Your Herd Up for Success
Purchasing the best bull for your operation’s needs starts with good record-keeping to identify your operation’s strengths and weaknesses. Regularly collect and analyze data to track your herd’s performance. This will help you to make informed breeding decisions and track the progress of your herd over time.
Selection of a bull is one of the most important decisions you, the cow-calf operator, will make this year, and it is vital to your operation’s success. As breeding season approaches, this is a great opportunity to evaluate the goals of your operation and create a plan to accomplish them.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Microbiome – The Little Things May Mean a Lot 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the January 2025 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
A “microbiome” is all the microbes (bacteria, fungi, viruses and their genes) living in a specific environment, and how they all interact with each other. Animals have several microbiomes. There’s an oral microbiome (the mouth and all the microbes in it), as well as nasal, respiratory, rumen, intestinal, vaginal, rectal and skin microbiomes. The various microbiomes interact with each other as well as the host animal.
Animals are outnumbered by these microbial tenants. I call myself a human, but most of me isn’t. If I could separate all the cells in my body into a pile of human cells and a pile of microbial cells, the pile of microbial cells would be biggest. That’s also true of you, and it’s even more true with cattle, because the rumen and large intestines are giant microbial fermentation vats.
The key point about the “microbiome” is that the microbes and animal cells interact with each other and the environment they’re in. That’s most obvious when microbial populations are imbalanced. Bovine respiratory disease, rumen acidosis, bloat and liver abscesses are all examples of an out-of-kilter microbiome.
Dietary changes can temporarily shift microbial populations, but permanently changing an established microbiome is very challenging. That’s one reason why so many commercial probiotics intended to “fix” or improve the microbiome need to be fed continuously (and have inconsistent results).
It may be more effective to intervene early in life, while the various microbes are still sorting themselves out. That’s where much of the microbiome research is currently focused.
Nilusha Malmuthuge (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Lethbridge Research Centre) and Leluo Guan (University of British Columbia) recently reviewed the state of cattle microbiome science (Impact of maternal health and nutrition on the microbiome and immune development in neonatal calves; doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-24835).
What They Did
They reviewed and summarized scientific publications about the development of the microbiome in humans, lab animals and livestock. There are undoubtedly differences between species, but there are also common principles that apply across species.
What They Learned
The microbiome begins to develop much sooner than I thought.
Early life: Research comparing the offspring of mice with a normal microbiome to the offspring of germ-free mice found that normal development of the immune system depends on early colonization of the microbiome. Newborn calves are obviously exposed to a huge range of microbes from both the dam (both the udder and colostrum) and the environment they are born in. In the first few hours of life, colostrum by-passes the calf’s rumen and travels directly into the small intestine. The intestinal lining has a lot of specialized cells. Some of these specialized cells absorb maternal antibodies from the colostrum that protect the calf from disease. Other cells provide sites where microbes can begin to colonize. These microbes appear to help the calf absorb the maternal antibodies. Like the mouse studies, it appears that the microbes and the calf’s immune system each influence how the other develops. Exactly how this happens isn’t known, but it seems likely that the calving environment (e.g., open pasture vs. calving shed), season (e.g., frozen ground vs. mud) and pen conditions (sloppy vs. dry ground or well-bedded) will affect how the microbiome and immunity develop in the calf’s gut and respiratory tract.
Calving influences the microbiome. In normal calvings, the oral and respiratory microbiomes are “seeded” as the calf passes through the birth canal. But difficult calvings may cause even more problems than we already knew about. In humans, prolonged labor increases the likelihood of microbiome-linked disorders in the offspring. These include allergies, asthma, autism, colorectal cancers, diabetes, diarrhea, eczema, inflammatory bowel disease and obesity. Time will tell whether calving problems predispose calves to things like scours, reproductive disorders, BRD or liver abscesses.
Pregnant cow nutrition: The foundation for a healthy microbiome starts long before birth. In humans, studies have shown that the levels of fat, fruit, vegetable oils and specific dietary fatty acids the mother consumes during pregnancy can impact the immune system, microbiome, and health outcomes (especially allergies) of their children. In pregnant cows, research has shown that the vitamin and mineral program can influence the size and composition of the gut microbiome the calf develops after birth, possibly by influencing the microbes found in the colostrum. The pregnant cow’s diet can also impact how the calf’s immune system responds to vaccines both before and after weaning.
Bottom Line
Stay tuned. Ongoing research will clarify whether measurable changes in the composition of the newborn calf’s microbiome have practically and economically meaningful impacts on the calf’s long-term health, growth, fertility or longevity.
So What Does This Mean to You?
While we’re waiting for those answers, use what you already know. Pay careful attention to your winter-feeding program and cow body condition score. Those will help the fetal calf develop normally, reduce the risks of calving difficulty, produce nutritional colostrum with lots of antibodies. These will help give calves a good start in life. Some calves will still need help. Over half of all pre-weaning calf deaths happen in the first 24 hours of life. The BCRC’s Calf 911 resources can help you get distressed calves through that critical period. At today’s prices, time spent to find and save a few extra calves is likely worth the effort (even if they may not make quality replacements).
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Big Cows and Big Questions 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the December 2024 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
August’s column talked about how genetic selection for growth rate and carcass merit has resulted in heavier carcasses with better marbling scores. New genetics get to the feeder and packer through the bulls that cow-calf producers buy from seedstock producers. These new genetics also leave fingerprints on the cow herd as they pass through. If you retain your own replacement heifers, 87.5% of the genetics in your cow herd result from the last three “generations” of herd bulls you’ve introduced.
The same genes that make feeder cattle grow faster and larger also turn replacement heifers into larger cows. Canfax data shows that cow carcass weights have increased by 4.3 lbs per year since 1960. After correcting for dressing percentage (50.75%), these roughly equate to live weights of 945 lbs in 1960 and 1,450 lbs today. That’s a 53% increase. Canadian breed association genetic trends for mature weight point in the same direction, confirming that genetic change is contributing to this.
You may not have noticed your own cows gradually getting larger unless you measure and track cow weights, or if you only notice the size of the cull cow cheque but not the sale weights. But chances are, your cows have gotten bigger too.
The big question is, are big cows a problem?
Some contend that smaller cows are more efficient. They need less feed (so the same number of acres can pasture more cows) and wean calves that are a higher percentage of their body weight. In contrast, large cows need more feed and more pasture, and they wean calves that are smaller relative to cow size. Let’s take each of those in turn.
Feed requirements:Larger cows certainly need more fuel to maintain their weight and body condition than smaller cows. But, it’s not a 1:1 increase. On a pound-for-pound body weight basis, larger animals need proportionally less energy to maintain themselves than smaller animals. So, while today’s cows may weigh 53% more than the 1960 model, they only need 38% more feed energy. At the end of the day, the same feed and land resources that supported 100 cows in 1960 might support about 73 cows today. But the animal unit month (AUM) used to determine pasture stocking rates and carrying capacity is still based on a 1,000 lb animal. If your cows have gotten bigger, but you’re still pasturing the same number of cows per acre, they may be nutritionally shortchanged, unable to maintain body condition, rebreeding later or not at all, and dropping out of the herd sooner.
Weaning weights: Larger cows raise larger calves, but a 50% increase in cow weight doesn’t mean a 50% increase in weaning weight. If you still had 945 lb cows that weaned 410 lb calves (43% of cow weight) selling for $4.60/lb at today’s prices, their calf crop would generate $8,000 more revenue than 73 larger cows weaning 630 lb calves (also 43%) selling for $3.90/lb. The larger cows would have to wean 660 lb calves (46% of cow weight) to gross the same as the smaller cows. But if genetics, a late calving season or poor pasture conditions meant the 73 large cows only weaned 477 lb calves (33% of cow weight), they could gross $25,000 less than 100 smaller cows.
Are small cows better?Cows weaning a high percentage of their body weight aren’t necessarily more efficient. They probably milk very heavily. This significantly increases their feed requirements and makes it more difficult to maintain body condition, maintain a 365-day calving interval (or rebreed at all) and stay in the herd long enough to pay for their development costs.
Yesterday’s smaller cows did not guarantee reproductive success, either. Eugene Janzen studied this in 166 herds across western Canada in the fall of 1975 (Some observations on reproductive performance in beef cattle in Western Canada; PMC1789442). Pregnancy rates averaged 86% and ranged from below 60% to over 95%. In a smaller study of 15 herds around Vegreville, Alberta, the previous year, Eugene found pregnancy rates averaging 70% (Reproductive performance of beef cattle in northeastern Alberta; PMC1697146). Herds reporting 81-92% pregnancy rates had much better nutritional management than herds with 38-66% pregnancy rates.
Pasture and feed management need to meet the cow’s nutritional requirements, regardless of size. The most recent Canadian Cow-Calf Survey reported that pregnancy rates averaged 92.2% in Alberta (92.6% nationally) the fall of 2022, suggesting management is keeping pace with the nutritional demands of today’s larger cows.
Bottom Line
Big cows aren’t necessarily bad, but they don’t work for everyone. If your cows are weaning healthy, good-sized calves, maintaining a 365-day calving interval and staying in the herd long enough to make a profit, they’re probably right-sized for your operation. If they’re coming back open before they’ve paid for themselves, they may be too large for your operation’s resources and management style to support.
So what does this mean… to you?
Identifying the ideal cow for your operation — and the bull buying decisions that will help you get or stay there — starts with good records. Good records are key to good management and culling decisions. Buying bulls can be complicated. All the numbers and EPDs and ratios and indexes lead some producers to throw up their hands and rely on their eyeballs. Looks (frame, capacity, conformation, udder) are important, but they only tell you so much — cows wear their efficiency genes on the inside. The BCRC has developed a genetic record keeping course that can help simplify and demystify the process. You can learn more at BeefResearch.ca.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Baby, It’s Cold Outside – Six Tips for Managing Beef Cattle in Cold Weather 🎙️
Winter has rolled in across Canada, bringing snow, freezing rain and chilling winds. As temperatures drop, it is important to monitor how cattle are coping with the cold and how it is impacting their ability to remain productive.
The new Winter Management of Beef Cattle webpage is a comprehensive resource for management strategies in cold weather conditions.
Below are six tips for managing beef cattle during cold weather:
Tip #1 – Provide Weather Protection
It is important to remember that when wintering beef cattle, they experience wind chill effects just like people do. Depending on the geographical location, natural protection from wind and snow is not always readily available. In these situations, construction of man-made windbreaks is necessary.
The effectiveness of a windbreak is only as good as the design chosen, which is determined by factors such as the number of animals utilizing the structure and the prevailing wind direction(s). A general recommendation is 1 foot of fence length for each cow.
Tip #2 – Water Access is Key
For optimum health, cattle need a consistent source and adequate supply of water on a daily basis. Water quality and intake will affect cattle growth and performance. Calves less than six months of age can consume between 20 to 50 litres of water per day depending upon temperature, while growing cattle can consume between 30 and 78 litres daily. Lactating cows require 40 to 60 litres per day.
Inadequate access to water during cold weather will limit feed intake and reduce a cow’s ability to meet its energy requirements. This results in reduced production performance and a loss of body condition.
There are many different water systems available, and the suitability of each will depend on a number of factors, such as herd size, water sources, access to power, local geographic conditions and cost.
Tip #3 – Put a Focus on Body Condition
One of the easiest ways to reduce cold stress in cattle is to ensure adequate body condition before winter’s onset. Thin cattle do not have fat reserves and require more feed than cows in good body condition in order to tolerate the cold winter months.
Monitor body condition regularly and, if cows fall below a BCS of 3.0, adjust the feeding program to include added supplementation at least 60 days before calving. It is important to remember cow maintenance requirements increase substantially (up to 40% more) during the winter and during late gestation.
A 1,400 lb cow will require about 200 lbs of body weight gain to move from a body condition score of 2.0 to 3.0. To make this change in 90 days requires 20% more energy than a cow that is maintaining condition; to do it in 60 days requires 30% more energy. This means it will be 20-30% more expensive to improve body condition during the winter.
Consider sorting cattle into management groups so you can feed them according to requirements. As an example, you might sort into three groups: 1) mature cows in good condition, 2) bred replacement heifers/second-calf heifers and 3) thin or old cows.
Tip #4 – Include Added Energy in the Diet
Cold stress impacts beef cattle nutrient requirements by increasing the need for energy, which can come from either extra feed or body reserves.
Energy is typically the most limiting nutrient in winter rations. A general recommendation is to provide an extra 1 lb (0.45 kg) of grain or pellets per day for every 5 degrees the temperature is below -20 degrees Celsius at midday. This means that a beef cow exposed to a temperature of –30°C requires a minimum of 2 lbs additional grain. However, the amount may need to be further increased depending on exposure to wind or if the cattle are wet.
Any additional grain in the ration should be introduced slowly and consistently to avoid upsets to the rumen.
Tip #5 – Provide Sufficient Bedding
Bedding provides a layer of insulation between the cold ground or snow and the animal, which is crucial to help prevent frostbite (including frozen testicles or teats), hypothermia and death. It also works to keep cattle dry and free from mud accumulation, both of which reduce the insulating properties of cattle hair coats, thus increasing feed requirements.
Remember, calves experience cold stress much faster than cows, which increases their susceptibility to disease and lowers growth rates. Areas bedded for calves must be kept clean and dry, with new bedding added frequently. In addition, calf warming areas and adequate colostrum should be prepared ahead of any expected period of extreme cold weather conditions.
Tip #6 – Frequently Monitor Weather Conditions and How Cattle Are Responding
Weather conditions can change rapidly, leading to compromised water access and rendering windbreaks ineffective. Dramatic changes in temperature put extra stress on cattle, particularly those groups that are more susceptible to the cold such as young calves and under-conditioned cows.
Have plans in place for periods of extreme cold weather and watch for signs of cold stress in your cattle.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
This article is one of a series of case studies on forage beneficial management practices from Alberta Agrisystems Living Lab and Canfax. It is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission.
Extended grazing can play a key role in lowering your feed costs and can have positive benefits for the health of your land. Some of these benefits include more even manure distribution across fields, less corral cleaning, improved soil fertility and overall reduced fuel use on your operation. One thing to keep in mind with extended grazing is the nutritional or feeding needs for the cattle. Some stages of growth or pregnancy may need more feed than extended grazing can provide. Careful monitoring of the cattle’s condition and feed tests can help you to be successful with extended grazing.
Swath grazing utilizes annual crops, such as cereals or forage crops, that are cut in the fall and left in the field for cattle to graze directly. It can improve soil fertility by directly depositing manure, and trampled feed residue can also build organic matter in the soil.
Bale grazing strategically places bales of hay or forage in designated grazing areas for winter feeding. Producers can optimize feed utilization and enhance pasture productivity by rotating bale locations and distribution.
Both swath and bale grazing offer several advantages over daily feed delivery methods, including reduced feed, labour, machinery fuel costs, residue and manure management costs and reduced reliance on extra fertilizer.
However, there are unique challenges, such as environmental conditions (heavy snow, freeze-thaw cycles, etc.), feed lost to wildlife, availability of winter watering sources and increased animal energy requirements that must be managed.
Learn more about extended grazing from three producers utilizing these techniques in Alberta.
Extended grazing season: Swath and bale grazing techniques enable grazing for more days in a year, reducing the reliance on purchased or stored feed and associated costs such as machinery, fuel and labour.
Soil health benefits: Both swath and bale grazing can improve soil health by adding organic matter, nutrients and moisture retention capabilities to grazing sites, leading to enhanced forage productivity and resilience.
Wildlife and weather management: Strategies such as fencing, timing of swathing and/or grazing, and leaving bales wrapped may mitigate challenges posed by wildlife. It may also be necessary to have a backup feeding plan in case the weather creates conditions not suitable for extended grazing.
Feed allocation: Matching the feed allocated to the number of cattle and extended grazing days, supplementing as necessary and feeding thin or growing animals separately can help to ensure animal nutritional requirements are met.
Site selection is important: Not every location is suitable for extended grazing or winter feeding. Avoiding areas that will be harmed by excessive nutrient build-up or subsequent run-off of those nutrients is important.
Adaptability and learning: Successful swath and bale grazing requires adaptability, careful planning and continuous learning. Mentorship and ongoing management adjustments can help optimize your system.
Having a backup plan in Central Alberta
Terri and Brad Mappin run 225 cow-calf pairs on their ranch located near Byemoor in Central Alberta. They utilize bale, and occasionally, swath grazing to extend their grazing season to limit their daily machinery and fuel use and to lower yardage and overall winter feed costs. The Mappin’s expressed it is a “lot cheaper to go out and move a fence every three or four days. If you’re not starting a tractor until the end of January or even into February or even if it’s at the end of December… for every day, every week that you can extend that grazing season, you’re just dollars ahead.”
In the past, they have planted an oat with a cover crop mix that includes turnips at the end of May or early June for swath grazing, swathing the crop in late August or early September to the time the swath lays on the ground. Cattle are provided with four half-mile lengths of swaths every three to four days, using portable electric fencing. They make sure that the cattle still have access to shelter, regardless of where the swath grazing occurs. One of their main constraints is their total available cropping acres, which limits the amount of forage they can grow for swath grazing. However, in the years they swath graze, they rotate where the swath grazing takes place to avoid excessive nutrient buildup in any one area.
When they first started bale grazing, they experimented with 125 bales and only bale grazed with bred and first-calf heifers. The bales were placed in six rows, and the cattle had access to one row at a time by moving a portable electric fence. The young heifers stayed in good condition, which prompted them to expand their bale grazing to include their main herd, on pastureland. The Mappin’s do monitor body condition and cull those that are not performing as well on this extensive grazing system. A variety of baled forages are used, for example, last year they used wheat greenfeed that had hail damage. After bale grazing is complete for the season, their cattle remain in an extensive winter-feeding system but are moved to crop stubble, where they are fed silage. This eliminates manure hauling costs and adds some natural fertilizer and organic matter to the cropland.
Bale grazing photos courtesy of Terri Mappin
Aside from managing feed costs, bale grazing has added organic matter and nutrients to the land. Observations via drone images showed visible productivity differences between bale grazed and non-bale-grazed sections. However, they also have encountered several challenges. With drought for the past three years, feed costs have risen. They do not plant a swath grazing crop in dry years, instead opting to silage straight oats. They try to maintain a two- to three-year supply of stockpiled silage or other forages as their “insurance policy” so that they have enough winter feed for their herd in dry years, but several dry years in a row has lowered the desired stockpile inventory.
Top Tips
Have backup feed: Stockpiling extra feed provides flexibility in winter feeding plans and can mitigate the impact of unpredictable weather patterns on feed availability.
Enjoy the benefits: Implementing extensive grazing systems reduces winter-feeding days, lowering machinery use and labour hours.
Three-day feed allotments in Southern Alberta
Kelly and Glen Hall’s ranch is located near Parkland in Southern Alberta, where they raise 180 head of Simmental cross cows and custom-feed backgrounders. As seasoned practitioners of both bale and swath grazing, their approach prioritizes cost reduction and labour efficiency, while fostering land rejuvenation. They have a goal to convert land they currently swath graze back into perennial forage production for a full bale grazing setup.
In their swath grazing endeavors, Kelly and Glen strategically rotate cattle off swath-grazed fields before spring ground softens to prevent soil compaction. Additionally, they adjust grazing directions each year to distribute manure evenly. When thin swaths are at risk of rain damage or wind dispersal, they opt to bale those swaths to preserve nutritional value.
The Hall’s bale grazing is aimed at reducing manure hauling costs associated with confined feeding systems. When they transitioned to bale grazing a decade ago, they started with mature cows nearing the end of their second trimester. Now, replacements along with first and second calvers are separated from the mature cow herd and fed in a separate bale grazing group to reduce feed competition and allow those younger animals to maintain body condition over the winter more easily.
Before the winter-feeding season, Kelly and Glen calculate approximately how much feed will be needed. They start by estimating feed intake at 2.5% of body weight per day and add in a bit more for supplementation or increased intake during extreme weather. Then, using the number of cattle in each group and three-day feed allocations, they can determine the pounds of forage (or number of bales) needed to optimize feed utilization, using temporary fencing to only allow access to that amount of feed.
Swath grazing photos courtesy of Kelly Hall
Before letting cattle into each individual section, bale twine is removed. Overall, they find hay is less wasteful than greenfeed for bale grazing because greenfeed often falls apart faster after taking the twine off. “It just poofs when you take the strings off compared to hay. Hay sticks together better. Greenfeed is a little trickier because it just kind of explodes when you take the twine off because it’s slippery. Cows are much more respectful of a round bale than the yearlings are.”
They leave the bales in the field where they were made to minimize transportation and add nutrients back into the soil. They bale graze multiple fields that have perimeter fencing and water access and try to rotate them from year to year. The fields selected for bale grazing also depend on that year’s forage yield as they would rather take the cattle to the bales.
When the cows are given their pre-calving vaccinations, they are taken off bale grazing, put on stockpiled grass and supplemented with rolled-out bales. Kelly and Glen like to remove cattle from the hay fields before the ground softens to avoid ruts and to keep those fields from getting too rough.
Some of the challenges faced are weather and wildlife, including mule and whitetail deer consuming forage. However, the weather is a greater concern for Kelly and Glen, as Chinook winds cause snow to drift and build up on the sides of bales, making twine removal difficult. Sometimes a hard crust forms on top of the swaths, making them harder for the cattle to access. To mitigate the impacts of wind and blowing snow, they use portable wind fences to provide protection for both the cattle and feed.
Kelly and Glen noted that their cattle have more room to exercise and are healthier and even happier. They also find the cattle are cleaner, with less tag in the winter grazing system compared to the confined system.
Top Tips
Find a mentor: Talking to somebody with previous experience can aid in learning and help further improve practices in your operation.
Be flexible: When thin swaths are at risk of rain damage or wind dispersal, they opt to bale them to preserve nutritional value or blowing away.
Manage ground with re-seeding in mind: Rotate cattle off swath-grazed fields before spring ground softens to prevent soil compaction and rutting. Adjusting grazing direction can spread manure evenly.
Navigating wildlife in Central Alberta
For many years, Doug and Deb Skeels have run a cow-calf operation with 60 cows and a backgrounding operation south of Rocky Mountain House. They have been bale grazing for about ten years and have used other winter feeding systems in the past, but find bale grazing is the best fit for their operation.
In the fall, after weaning, the bred heifers and young cows are separated from the main herd for winter feeding, limiting competition for feed and ensuring heifers maintain body condition. Once the cows are older, they join the main cow herd on bale grazing. The cows sometimes get silage after bale grazing is done in April and calving starts. “We started out in this business 30-some years ago. We used to calve our cows in the corral in February and now looking back, that was maybe the worst thing we could have done.” They set out about one bale per 10 cows for a three-day period. If the weather is colder, cattle will be moved every two days, but they typically stick to three-day moves on mild winter days. “There’s 8 to 12 hours of machine time to set out my whole grazing system for the winter, you know, almost every other system requires an hour or two of tractor time at least every second day, if not every day.”
The perimeter fence for the bale grazing field is high tensile wire. They use rebar posts with insulators and 1/16 cable on a reel for their temporary fencing. A ball peen hammer is used to put in the rebar, and to take them out in the spring, they use a basic pipe wrench. In the past, they have had to weld together longer rebar posts when snow was deeper to reach the ground and ensure the fence was high enough. The 1/16 cable is very visible, and they find cattle pay attention to it more. A 12-volt solar power system powers their electric fence. They also have a permanent 24-volt solar-powered water system.
Rotational bale grazing photos courtesy of Darren Bruhiell
If bale grazing is done on a hill, Doug moves cattle up the hill to the next section of bales. If bales roll down the hill, then they do not disturb the fencing to the next section of bales. The Skeels prefer to use net wrap and stand the bales on end to make it easier to remove the net wrap. They leave three quarters of the net wrap on with the bottom quarter of net wrap removed so it does not freeze to the ground. Leaving some of the net wrap on ensures that the hay does not blow away and helps deter deer from eating the bales as much as possible. Overall, they find that net wrap is easier to take off than twine. Doug states, “The deer here are our biggest challenge, but they will generally stay a little way away from the cows. When you get to the end of the bale grazing sections, then sometimes the deer get tangled in the fences and tear them down.” Moose are worse because they do not care about the fences, but Doug has not yet had any moose trying to eat their bales. He recognizes that moose and elk can be a problem in other areas.
The Skeels rotate where they bale graze each year through different sections of the same pasture. Bale grazing is completed in the first part of April before calving. Calving is done on pasture, further eliminating the need for manure storage and hauling.
Top Tips
Manage body condition: Separate young females and feed them separately to limit competition for feed and to maintain body condition score for rebreeding.
Graze uphill: They graze their bales uphill. That way, any bales that may roll down do not roll into the next fence line but instead into the previously grazed area.
Manage for losses: Leave some twine/net wrap on the bales until just before feeding to reduce potential wildlife or weather losses
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Overextended Grazing 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the November 2024 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Last month’s column featured a University of Saskatchewan research trial that used high-moisture corn grain, snaplage or silage to partially replace barley grain or silage in finishing diets. While the steers were in the feedlot, this team wintered cows on the corn stover (Performance and ruminal fermentation of second-trimester pregnant beef cows fed short-season high-moisture corn stover or barley greenfeed during winter in western Canada; https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2023-0035).
What They Did
They planned to compare the performance of mature, pregnant cows (30 to 36 per diet) winter-grazed on snaplage residue, high-moisture corn stover, or whole-plant barley over two years. Corn was harvested in mid-October at 30% moisture, barley was swathed in mid-August at the hard dough stage, and grazing started in late November. Feed tests showed that corn stover contained less protein than whole-plant barley, so cows fed corn stover were supplemented with corn DDGS (1.1 lbs/head in 2020-21 and 4.3 lbs/head/d in 2021-22). Cows fed corn stover were given additional DDGS as an energy supplement when windchills dipped below -30oC (6 lbs/head/d in Year 1 and 4.2 lbs/head/d in Year 2). Cows fed whole-plant barley were supplemented with DDGS (2.4 lbs/head/d) during cold weather in Year 1 but not Year 2. Feed intakes, body weights and body condition scores were measured. Cattle had constant access to windbreaks, water, salt, mineral and vitamin supplements and were bedded as needed.
What They Learned
Grazed corn stover vs. barley swaths: In Year 1, an early snowstorm flattened and buried the snaplage residue, making it inaccessible to the cows. That treatment was scrapped. High winds, geese and deer wreaked havoc on the corn stover windrows, so a lot of the highly digestible leaves, dropped cobs and shattered grain were gone before grazing started. The barley swaths were much less impacted by the wind and wildlife. Electric fences were moved every three days to control access to swaths. Higher fiber levels meant that cows grazing corn stover ate less than cows grazing barley swaths. But because supplemental DDGS were used to make up for these nutritional differences, the corn stover and barley grazed cows gained the same amount of weight and maintained body condition score equally well. The winter grazing trial ended in mid-January when heavy snow followed by rain and ice made swath grazing impossible.
Baled corn stover vs. barley greenfeed: Year 2 was a drought, resulting in 75% lower swathed barley yields and 50% lower corn stover yields compared to Year 1. To avoid the wind and wildlife losses, in Year 2, the corn stover windrows and barley swaths were baled and fed in bale feeders. Again, the cows fed baled corn stover ate less than the cows fed barley greenfeed. This time the intake differences were due to differences in both fiber and moisture content. The barley greenfeed was baled at 13% moisture. The high-moisture corn grain was harvested at 30% moisture, but the moisture content of the stalk and leaves was much higher (nearly 50%). It was baled immediately afterwards (to rescue it from the wind and the King’s livestock). The high moisture content led to many moldy, spoiled and frozen-solid corn stover bales despite added preservative (propionic acid). The cows were unable to pick and choose the most digestible parts out of the frozen bales, so they simply ate whatever they could pull out. As a result, the barley greenfeed cows gained weight 82 lbs and maintained body condition while the cows fed corn stover bales didn’t gain weight and lost body condition. This trial ended in mid-January when the barley greenfeed bales ran out.
Bottom Line
With appropriate protein (and possibly energy) supplementation, corn stover could be a useful feed for wintering pregnant cows. Baling stover under Western Canadian conditions is challenging as the stage of maturity may not allow for sufficient drying to prevent mold.
So what does this mean (or NOT mean)… to you?
Extended winter grazing doesn’t always go according to plan. Wildlife don’t just consume feed; they consume the best feed. So, testing swaths when grazing begins (rather than when they’re swathed) more accurately predicts the nutrients your cows can consume. Many producers have learned that swath grazing isn’t the optimal extended winter grazing strategy when wildlife live in the neighborhood. Electric fencing to control access to swath (or bales) is extra work but helps ensure cows don’t consume all the most nutritious cobs, heads and leaves early in the grazing season, then have to survive on stalks in the depth of winter.
Have a Plan B – deeply buried and frozen swaths ended the first trial early, and a feed shortage ended the second trial early. Make sure you have stored backup feed in case extended winter grazing becomes impossible. Make sure your cattle are bedded when they need it (wasted feed may suffice), have natural or manmade shelter, and clean, loose snow or open water (frozen dugouts are very risky) to help them maintain weight and body condition and keep a 365-day calving interval. Doing the small things right is critical to ensure that low-cost winter grazing strategies don’t have a long-term cost.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Where Does Corn Fit in Western Canadian Feedlot Diets?
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the October 2024 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Corn acreage is expanding across Canada. There are about 25 acres of corn for every acre of barley in Ontario and Quebec, where temperatures, daylength and moisture allow predictable corn yields and feed quality. There are around eight acres of barley for every acre of corn in the prairies, although ambitious breeding efforts are underway to develop short-season corn varieties and production strategies to suit Western Canada’s more challenging climate.
Corn can be ensiled as ground, high-moisture corn (a high-starch energy source), or as whole-plant silage (a moderate energy source of fiber). It can also be ensiled as snaplage (the entire chopped ear of the corn, including the shank, cob, husk and grain), which lands somewhere in the middle. A team of researchers led by the University of Saskatchewan’s Greg Penner ran a trial using these different forms of corn to partially replace barley in feedlot finishing diets (Short-season high-moisture shelled corn, snaplage, or corn silage as a partial replacement for dry-rolled barley grain or barley silage in western Canadian beef cattle finishing diets; dx.doi.org/10.1139/CJAS-2023-0032).
What They Did
After backgrounding on the same diet, a total of 320 crossbred steers (1,164 lbs) were fed one of four finishing diets in a small pen trial (10 head per pen) in 2020 and 2021. The four diets were designed to find out what would happen when CDC Austenson barley silage and barley grain were replaced with Pioneer 7202AM dent corn silage, high moisture corn grain, or corn snaplage.
The control diet contained 10% barley silage and 88% rolled barley (rolled to a processing index of 65%). The second diet replaced the barley silage with 10% corn silage, along with 88% rolled barley. The third diet contained 10% barley silage and equal amounts (44% each) of rolled barley and ground high-moisture corn. The fourth diet contained 20% corn snaplage to entirely replace the barley silage and lower the rolled barley grain content to 77%. This ensured the dietary starch concentration was similar to the control. The rest of the diet was limestone, urea and a mineral/vitamin supplement. Steers were slaughtered after 99 (Year 1) or 72 (Year 2) days on feed. Live weights, average daily gain, feed intake, gain:feed, fecal starch content, liver abscesses and carcass data were measured.
What They Learned
Growth performance: Dry matter intakes, finished weights, average daily gains and gain:feed of steers fed the standard barley-based control diet were not statistically different from the steers fed any of the three corn diets. While fecal starch was very low in this study, fecal starch content was higher in the steers fed barley and high-moisture corn (2.2 vs. 1.4%) than the barley-based control diet.
Carcass measurements: Steers fed the barley and high-moisture corn diet had statistically heavier hot carcass weights (895 vs 884) and higher dressing percentages (59.7 vs. 59.0) than the barley-based control diet. This translated into carcass-adjusted final live weights (1,508 vs. 1,486 lbs) and average daily gains (4.2 vs. 3.9 lbs/day) that were greater than the steers fed the barley-based control diet. This suggests that the higher starch level of the barley and high moisture corn diet (56 vs. 52% in the barley-based control diet) was enough to offset the starch lost in the feces while still promoting greater carcass weight. Neither the corn silage nor the snaplage diet differed from the barley-based control diet. There were no differences in yield or quality grades.
Liver abscesses:Overall, proportions of minor or severe liver abscesses were the same across all four diets (74%). Severe liver abscesses were less common in steers fed the barley grain and snaplage diet than in steers fed the barley-based control diet (10% vs. 26%). This was attributed to the higher “physically effective fiber” content in the snaplage diet (5.3% vs. 4.5% in the barley-based diet) that may have helped maintain rumen health and moderate rumen pH.
Bottom Line
Replacing barley silage with corn silage, or entirely replacing the barley silage and some of the rolled barley with corn snaplage, didn’t negatively impact finishing steer performance or carcass value. Replacing half of the rolled barley with high-moisture corn produced some benefits.
So what does this mean (or NOT mean)… to you?
Corn is standard practice in Eastern Canada. But if you’re new to growing and feeding corn in Western Canada, remember that varieties and growing conditions matter! High-moisture corn typically has a higher starch content than barley. Dent corn varieties (like the one used in this trial), typically have more digestible protein and starch than flint corn varieties. Dent corn is more commonly grown in the U.S. and Eastern Canada. Most of the short-season corn grown in Western Canada is flint corn. But starch contents and yields drop when corn is drought-stressed, like it was in this study. In fact, drought was severe enough in 2021 that neither corn silage nor snaplage could be produced, and the second year of the study used corn silage and snaplage left over from the 2020 crop year. In contrast, barley grain and silage were grown in both years of the study. Home-grown corn has significant potential in Western Canada’s feedlot sector, but more work is needed to breed the production risk out of it.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Why Are You So Lame? Analyzing Lameness in Cattle 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the September 2024 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on the BCRC Blog with permission of the publisher.
Cattle get lame for a lot of reasons, including injury, poor conformation, grain overload, mycotoxins (e.g., ergot) and bacterial infection. Different types of lameness need to be treated differently. Antibiotic treatment only helps if a bacterial infection is involved.
Lameness is the second leading reason (behind bovine respiratory disease) that feedlot cattle are pulled and given antibiotics. Lame cattle eat less, grow more slowly and less efficiently, may be shipped early and often don’t grade as well. These add up to a significant economic cost. When cattle get lame late in the feeding period, pre-slaughter withdrawal times limit the number of antibiotic treatment options.
A team of Canadian researchers led by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein recently published a review of large-scale studies of foot-related lameness in feedlot cattle (A Review of Foot Related Lameness in Feedlot Cattle; https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2024-0047).
What They Did
These researchers reviewed studies of infectious foot-related lameness (i.e., not including chronic arthritis related to mycoplasma or histophilus) in feedlot cattle. These included several multi-year studies conducted in Canadian feedlots with treatment records on between 10,000 to over 1,000,000 cattle. Important hard-to-find details can appear when researchers have data sets that large.
What They Learned
Footrot is the most common cause of infectious foot-related lameness in feedlots. It can occur at any point in the feeding period (as well as in cow-calf operations). Footrot causes swelling between the claws of the hoof (often on the hind limb) that may extend into the lower leg. If the front of the foot is clean, a footrot lesion often looks dark and is surrounded by jagged edges with sloughing skin. Early detection and treatment are key to preventing a worse infection. Footrot typically responds to any long-acting antibiotic, so if the initial treatment doesn’t work, it’s probably not footrot. Several different bacteria appear to be involved, which may be why available footrot vaccines aren’t effective. Footrot is most common in poor pen conditions; good drainage and a good bedding mound help reduce the risk.
Digital dermatitis (also known as DD, strawberry foot rot, hairy heel wart) is generally much less common than footrot in feedlot cattle. Digital dermatitis is more commonly associated with dairy cattle. DD is rarely diagnosed in cow-calf operations but is becoming increasingly common in feedlot cattle. It doesn’t usually appear until cattle have been on feed for three months or more and can occur in combination with footrot. Affected cattle may not be lame and the affected foot may not be swollen, so these cattle may be harder to find in the pen (and may help explain why it isn’t often seen or diagnosed on cow-calf operations). Digital dermatitis starts as a circular or oval strawberry-red lesion where the skin and the heel bulbs meet at the back of the foot. In more advanced or chronic lesions, the infected skin can become rough, scaly and develop long hair-like projections. DD generally responds to topical antibiotics such as tetracycline. Copper sulfate footbaths are less effective for treatment, particularly once they’re contaminated by dirty hooves. Properly disposing of used copper sulfate is also a problem. Digital dermatitis is caused by multiple bacteria, but different bacteria than footrot. There is no vaccine. Clean, well-drained, well-bedded pen conditions help reduce the risk. Digital dermatitis bacteria can survive in the soil to infect new cattle, so once a feedlot is contaminated it probably becomes a fact of life.
A cross-section of the hoof demonstrates separation between the hoof wall and the white line in an animal affected by toe tip necrosis. (Photo: Murray Jelinski).
Toe tip necrosis nearly always occurs in the first days to weeks after cattle arrive at the feedlot. It always occurs in one or both hindlimbs. There is no swelling, which distinguishes it from footrot and trauma. It’s believed to happen when the sole of a hind foot has been scraped thin on rough concrete floors in the auction barn or handling area. The worn sole may then develop a tiny crack where the sole meets the toe of the hoof. This allows debris and bacteria to enter (sort of like a sliver under your fingernail) and set up an infection. It’s more common in excitable cattle, and in groups that are handled aggressively. Early in the disease the affected cattle tend to be slightly lame and take very short steps. However, if left untreated these animals may become three-legged lame.
Diagnosis and treatment involve nipping the tip of the toe to confirm the diagnosis, allowing it to drain like an abscess, and giving a long-acting antibiotic. Avoiding the temptation to buy wild cattle at a bargain price, having appropriately (not aggressively) grooved floors in handling areas, and low stress cattle handling are the best preventions.
Bottom Line
Not all lameness is caused by an infection, so not all lame cattle need antibiotics. Not all lameness is footrot, so there is no one-size-fits-all treatment. It’s a lot easier to make an appropriate treatment decision if you can get a good look at the foot before treating it so that you can be more confident about why it’s lame and how to treat it appropriately.
So what does this mean… to you?
Low-stress cattle handling and keeping pens as clean and dry as possible aren’t always easy or cheap, but neither is lameness.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Producers Weigh in on Weaning, Preg-Checking and More 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the September 2024 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Earlier this year we asked you to participate in the industry’s Canadian Cow-Calf Survey. Knowing which production practices producers are adopting in different regions of the country, which they aren’t (and why) helps us target our producer-focused extension efforts better. The official report isn’t out yet, but here’s a sneak peek at some seasonally relevant results.
What We Did
600 producers (managing 95,100 breeding females) responded to our online survey between November 2023 and March 2024. They represent 3% of Canada’s cow herd. For reference, national consumer or voter polls typically target 1,000 to 1,500 responses (about 0.0025% of 39 million Canadians).
What We Learned
Low-stress weaning is becoming more popular in Central and Eastern Canada. The multiple stresses associated with weaning weaken the calf’s immune system and make it more susceptible to BRD. Low stress (e.g., two-stage, fenceline or natural) weaned calves spend less time walking and bawling, and more time resting and eating than abruptly weaned calves (aka “weaning onto the truck”). This helps reduce the risk of BRD. The 2023-24 survey indicated that low-stress weaning was becoming more common in Eastern Canada (55 to 58% of producers, depending on the region, compared to 33 to 46% in the 2017 Atlantic and Ontario Cow-Calf Surveys). Low-stress weaning changed less in Western Canada (44 to 54% of producers in 2023-24, depending on the province, compared to 51% in the 2017 Western Canadian Cow-Calf Survey). Time, labor, facilities, logistics, convenience and lack of economic incentive are the major barriers to adopting low-stress weaning.
Pregnancy checking remains stable.Pregnancy testing and culling open cows can help manage winter feed supplies and costs. Similar numbers of Western Canadian producers pregnancy checked their cows (50 to 70% vs. 62% in 2017) and heifers (56 to 76% vs. 71% in 2017) in spite of drought, feed shortages and high hay prices. Pregnancy checking also remained stable in Central and Eastern Canada for both cows (50 to 55% of producers vs. 49 to 66% in 2017) and heifers (55 to 59% of producers vs. 47 to 64% in 2017). A third of producers who did not pregnancy check felt they were able to visually identify open females. A quarter didn’t see the value in pregnancy checking because they sold their open cows in spring when prices are generally higher. This can be a viable strategy when winter feed supplies and market conditions work in your favor.
More producers are body condition scoring (BCS).Body condition score is one of the simplest and most accurate predictors of cow health and rebreeding performance. In the most recent survey, 69 to 82% of Western Canadian producers reported visually evaluating BCS, up from 64% in 2017. Adoption increased markedly in Central and Eastern Canada (67 to 71% of producers, up from 23 to 50% in 2017). Hands-on BCS scoring remained much lower in both Western (5 to 19% of producers, vs. 13% in 2017) and Eastern Canada (13 to 21% vs. 0 to 26% in 2017). The accuracy of visual BCS goes down as your distance from the cow or the depth of the haircoat increase. If she’s already in the chute to vaccinate or preg check, why not reach through and feel what’s really there?
More producers are using BCS to manage their cows accordingly. Feeding thin, older cows and young growing heifers separately from mature cows in good BCS is a simple way to help them get through the winter in optimal condition. The most recent survey said that 75 to 84% of Western producers used BCS in their cow management decisions (vs. 73% in 2017). Adoption among Eastern producers doubled (60 to 70% vs. 33% in 2017).
More producers are feed testing. Feed testing tells you what the nutrient levels are in the feed you’ve got. More producers in both Western Canada (68 to 79% vs. 60% in 2017) and Central and Eastern Canada (50 to 54% vs. 25 to 34% in 2017) report having tested their feed at least periodically (though not necessarily every year or multiple times throughout the year).
More Central and Eastern Canadian producers are using their feed test results to develop rations. Feed test results are only valuable if they are used to ensure your cattle get the nutrition they need to grow, (re)breed, get pregnant, successfully maintain a pregnancy, and deliver and wean a healthy calf. In Western Canada, 84 to 98% of producers used their feed test results to develop rations (similar to 2017’s 95%). But 76 to 86% of Central and Eastern Canadian producers did so (vs. 29 to 79% in 2017).
Bottom Line
Success often comes from doing the right small things, and from doing the small things right. Your Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off funds help us develop science-based tools to help you evaluate whether a particular production practice (like the ones listed above) make economic sense for your operation.
So what does this mean… to you?
You don’t control the price of feed and you don’t control the price of calves, but you do control the management decisions you make. Visit www.BeefResearch.ca if you’d like more information on any of the topics discussed above.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.BeefResearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Results of the Inaugural Canadian Cow-Calf Survey🎙️
The Beef Cattle Research Council (BCRC), in collaboration with Canfax Research Services and regional representatives, recently took a snapshot of production practices that have been adopted by cow-calf producers across the country, as well as performance measures of their herds.
The inaugural Canadian Cow-Calf Survey collected data from 600 producers across nine provinces on the 2022 breeding season through the 2023 weaned calf crop, as well as reasoning and rationale for some practices.
Survey results will be used to help the BCRC prioritize research and extension strategies funded by the research allocation of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off to support producers with different types of herds and operations in various regions.
Sample of results
Weaning
About one-third (32.4%) of respondents use fence line separation, 12% use nose paddle or two-stage weaning, and 2% rely on natural weaning.
When the 50.8% of respondents who reported using traditional separation were asked about reasons, 58.7% indicated they sell their calves immediately after weaning, 21.1% cited a lack of time, labor or infrastructure to wean them differently, and 11.9% did not see any financial benefit from alternative methods.
Nationally, 60% of respondents sold calves at weaning, while 40% indicated that they have retained ownership of most of their calves after weaning in the last three years. Among the respondents who retained ownership, close to 60% reported that they retained ownership for more than 120 days.
Nationally, calf death loss within 24 hours of birth averaged 2.2% for cows and 3.7% for heifers in the 2023 calving season. For comparison, the reported losses in Ontario in 2016 was 3.0% for cows and 4.1% for heifers, and Western Canada in 2017 reported 2.7% in cows and 4.4% in heifers.1
Death loss between 24 hours and weaning averaged 2.5% for calves born to cows and 2.9% for calves born to heifers across Canada. For comparison, the reported losses in Ontario in 2016 was 5.3% for cows and 3.4% for heifers, and in 2017 Western Canada reported 2.5% in cows and 2.4% in heifers.1
Canadian producers employ varied approaches to resuscitate unresponsive newborn calves. Placing the calf in recovery position and rubbing vigorously are commonly practiced methods, with 37% of respondents indicating they always use these techniques. Poking straw or a finger in the nose was also commonly practiced with 30% respondents indicating they always use this technique.
Hanging a calf upside down to drain liquid from its lungs is a traditional technique, however, this only drains fluid from the calf ’s stomach, not its lungs. Holding a calf upside down or draping it over a gate or fence also causes the calf ’s stomach and intestines to compress the lungs and diaphragm, making it even harder for the calf to breathe. 66% of respondents reported never hanging calves upside down for a period of time. For comparison, more than 50% of Western Canadian cow-calf operations surveyed in 2017 reported hanging calves over a fence or gate as a resuscitation technique. 3
Open rates, along with calving interval, often relate to breeding season length, which varied regionally. Alberta and Saskatchewan producers reported shorter breeding season lengths for cows of 80 and 87 days respectively, while Quebec and Maritimes producers reported a 131-day breeding season.
Nationally, the average cow open rate was 7.4%, while the heifer open rate was 11% in the 2022 breeding season. The lowest open rates were reported in Quebec and the Maritimes with 4.1% in cows and 8.1% in heifers. The highest open rates were reported in Manitoba with 10.1% in cows and 13.2% in heifers.
Results showed that, on average, 69% of Canadian cow-calf producers lab test their feed occasionally or annually. For comparison, 60% of Western Canadian producers in 2017 and 34% of Ontario cow-calf producers in 2016 reported lab testing their feed occasionally or annually.1
Of producers who reported feed testing, nearly half (48.8%) used the lab results to develop rations on their own; more than a third (35.8%) of producers work with a nutritionist to use feed tests to develop rations; and 5.3% use the results with their extension specialist to create rations. Ten percent of respondents do not use feed test results.
Approximately 31% do not feed test. The majority (45.1%) cited the perception that their cattle appeared healthy, thus no need for testing. Other significant reasons included the lack of confidence in making or implementing plans based on feed test results (15.9%), the perceived high cost of testing (12.1%) and uncertainty about how to collect and send feed samples for analysis (9.9%).
Survey results showed that 38.2% of respondents tested their livestock’s drinking water one or more times in the past three years. Of those who never tested livestock’s drinking water, 20.5% of respondents see no need to test as their cattle appear healthy, 5.9% lack confidence in using test results and 5.1% are uncertain about sample collection and submission (5.1%).
On average nationally, 94% of respondents vaccinated their cattle. Vaccination rates of bulls, cows, replacement heifers and calves varied considerably by disease type and region. The greatest vaccine use in practice was for seven, eight, or nine-way Clostridial vaccine administered to calves, as reported by 84.7% of respondents. Vaccination for reproductive diseases was most prevalent among cows (69.3%) and replacement heifers (71.8%). Bovine Respiratory Disease vaccinations were highly adopted across all categories, with calves showing the highest rate at 73.4%. Scours vaccinations and Vibrio/Lepto were less common overall compared to other vaccines. Generally, vaccination rates are highest in Western Canada and lowest in Quebec and the Maritimes.
Of the 8.9% of respondents who did not vaccinate their breeding females for reproductive disease, 34.3% cited having a closed herd as their reason, while 28.6% are satisfied with their conception rates and saw no need to vaccinate. Other barriers included the lack of facilities (5.7%), lack of labor (5.7%), the expense of vaccination (2.9%) and inability to access a veterinarian to develop a herd health program (2.9%).
Additionally, 34.8% of respondents reported consulting with a veterinarian on their herd health program yearly, 37.2% two to five times per year, and 24.1% did not consult a veterinarian.
Remote drug delivery
Results showed 63.3% of respondents did not use a remote drug delivery device (RDDD) for treatment, while 14.5% used it fewer than five times a year, 9.8% used it five to ten times a year, and 6.5% used it 11 to 20 times a year. The adoption rate of remote drug delivery devices was higher in the prairie provinces, compared to the rest of the country.
For those who used an RDDD for treatment, treating foot rot, septic arthritis and lameness was most prominent, as reported by 94.4% of respondents. Pinkeye and eye infections were the next most common conditions treated with a RDDD at 49.1%.
The survey found that pain mitigation during castration was always used by 26.2% of respondents, while 20.4% use it depending on age and method. 53.4% of respondents do not use pain mitigation during castration with the primary reason (87% of respondents) being that calves are castrated before three months old. For comparison, in 2017, 72% of producers in Western Canada did not use pain mitigation during castration with the same primary reason.1
For those who dehorn calves, 47.3% of respondents always use some form of pain mitigation when dehorning, while 22.9% use it based on age and method. The majority (80.6%) of respondents had more than 75% of their calves born polled. For comparison, in 2017, 31% of producers in Western Canada always used some form of pain mitigation when dehorning, while 14% used it based on age and method.
The majority of respondents (79.2%) rely on paper records for their record-keeping. Nearly half of the respondents (47.8%) use spreadsheets, while 20.7% employ accounting software. Electronic cattle management software was utilized by 17.8% of respondents. A small percentage (4.7%) use other methods such as purebred association registry and cell phone apps. 1.2% of respondents do not keep records at all. The majority (85.9%) of those who keep records use them for on-farm decision making.
The BCRC’s Cow-Calf Production Indicators Calculator can be used by producers to compare 15 of their own production numbers with industry targets and regional benchmarks informed by this survey.
Noteworthy trends
More information on trends and substantial changes in production practices and performance measures over time will be available in the updated BCRC report, Adoption Rates of Recommended Practices by Cow-Calf Operators in Canada, which is expected in Spring 2025. The report, last published in 2019, will be a comprehensive literature review including results of the 2023 Canadian Cow-Calf Survey.
The inaugural Canadian Cow-Calf Survey amalgamated and replaced regional cow-calf production surveys conducted by various organizations between 2013-2017. The BCRC intends to repeat the national survey every five years.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Improve Your Bottom Line with the Power of Feed Testing 🎙️
Now that cattle feed is harvested or being harvested, it’s time to start thinking about testing that feed. While visual assessment can help separate the good quality feed from the poor-quality feed, it is not going to help you determine the energy and protein content – only a feed test can accurately provide this information.
For example, if you harvested your feed at the end of August and sent the sample off mid-September, then you should have your results back by the end of September at the latest, giving you between then and when you start winter feeding to source any supplemental feed you might need.
Why feed test?
Develop appropriate rations that meet the nutritional needs of different classes of beef cattle and stages of production.
Identify nutritional gaps that may require supplementation including trace minerals that are often deficient in cattle across Canada such as copper and selenium.
Prevent or identify potentially devastating problems due to toxicity from mycotoxins, nitrates, sulfates or other minerals or nutrients.
Avoid production problems, such as reduced conception or poor gain caused by mineral or nutrient deficiencies or excesses.
Economize feeding and possibly make use of opportunities to include diverse ingredients such as fruit and vegetable waste.
Accurately price feed for buying or selling.
Accurate knowledge of feed quality, particularly the operation’s forage base allows beef producers to develop feeding strategies for specific production scenarios and minimize the over- or under-feeding of nutrients. By so doing, one is able to achieve desired production targets and save on supplemental feed costs.
Any feed type that will be used to feed beef cattle can and should be analyzed at a lab to ensure the nutritional needs of livestock are being met. This includes silage, baled forages and straw, by-products, baleage, grain, swath grazing, cover crops and corn.
The amount of sample to send to a lab will vary based on lab specification. Typically, a one-quart, zip-style plastic bag is enough sample. However, more may need to be sent depending on the number of tests requested.
For baled forages, group the forage to be sampled into lots, which could be based on forage maturity, variety, harvest date, a single field or a single cutting.
Use a forage probe to acquire the minimum recommendation of 20 cores for each forage lot you wish to submit. Once you have the sample collected, put it in a plastic zip bag and clearly label it. Samples should be stored in a cool location, such as a refrigerator or cooler with ice packs, until shipping to the chosen lab.
For silageand high-moisture grains there are different recommendations for sampling depending on the type of storage system utilized:
Hand-grab samples can be collected for fresh silage from each load throughout the day of harvest. Sampling fresh forage gives you advanced knowledge of the nutritional quality of the stored forage. The fiber and protein fractions should not change significantly following harvest if proper ensiling and fermentation has occurred.
If the silage is stored in a bunker or pit, the face should be scraped using a loader or shaver to create a fresh pile for sampling. Collecting hand-grab samples directly from the face is not recommended as this presents a safety hazard.
Hand-grab samples can be collected across the face of silage stored in a bagfollowing a W or M pattern. If collecting from the side of the bag using a forage probe, holes should be sealed afterwards to preserve forage quality.
When stored in a upright silo, allow the silo unloader to run for several minutes prior to collecting a sample. The sample can be taken from a pile made by the silo unloader or out of a feed cart if loading directly into a feed cart. DO NOT sample from the two to three feet at the bottom or top of the silo.
Mix samples in a clean container to create a composite sample and then subsample for analysis. Seal composite subsamples in a plastic sample bag, seal (removing as much air as possible), label and store in a freezer until shipping.
It is important to wait a minimum of four weeks after ensiling before sampling. This should be adequate time for the fermentation process to be stabilized.
For swath grazingor standing forage, obtain representative samples of the sward (swaths) or the whole plant from 10 to 20 locations throughout the field.
Chop sampled forage into two-inch pieces, mix and divide into composited subsamples for analysis. Remove air from plastic sample bags and store in a freezer until shipping.
For grains, pellets or alternativefeeds, 10 to 15 samples from each truckload or bin should be collected using a clean sample probe or scoop. Samples should be collected throughout the load representing a good cross-section of the truck or at regular frequency throughout the entire unloading process.
Interpreting lab results
Most labs provide basic information on protein, moisture content, energy, total digestible nutrients, fibre and some vitamins and minerals. More specialized tests may include results for nitrates, toxins, relative feed value (RFV) and other parameters. Consult our list of Canadian feed-testing laboratories.
The BCRC’s Tool for Evaluating Feed Test Results allows producers to see how a single feed meets the basic nutritional requirements of different classes of cattle in different stages of production under normal circumstances.
Laboratory results are often reported as both “Dry Matter” and “As-Fed” bases. Dry Matter (DM) refers to the moisture-free nutritional content of the sample. Always formulate rations on a DM basis.
Interested in feed testing? What’s next?
Do you have the right tools, including a forage probe? Are the samples you’ve collected representative of your feed types?
Assess your feed resources. What types of feeds are you planning to use, and which tests best suit your forage types? Do you want a standard feed analysis or a more specialized one?
Evaluate your goals for feed testing. What is motivating you? How do you plan to use the results? Have you considered contacting a nutritionist, agrologist or veterinarian who can work with you to help interpret the analyses?
Are there potential risk factors you want to avoid? For example, are you concerned about the risk of mycotoxins in barley or nitrates in a crop that was stressed? Have you or your neighbours had particular problems in the past?
Understand the realities of potential results and study your feeding options. If your feed is poor quality or contains potentially dangerous toxins, how can you use it best? Do you have experience using poor-quality feed? Do you understand the risks of using potential problem feeds? Consider budgeting your quality feed for the higher production requirement periods.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Genes Behind the Scenes 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the August 2024 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on the BCRC Blog with permission of the publisher.
The cattle you raise and the beef they produce are the result of two factors – their genetic potential, and the environment they’re raised in (climate, feed, health management, handling practices and everything else you do).
The beef industry adopts genetics more slowly than poultry, swine or dairy. Several things make genetic advancement trickier in beef cattle.
Comparing beef to other industries is like comparing apples to oak trees – our production systems are very different. Pigs, poultry and dairy cows are usually raised in intensive confinement systems that tightly control the physical environment and diet. This means production practices (and productivity) can be reasonably similar across the entire country. When a barn largely eliminates the environmental factors, even the most demanding genetics can be accommodated. In contrast, cow-calf production takes place in the natural environment. Beef cows need all the genetic flexibility they can get to cope with blizzards, drought, bogs, hills, parasites, predators, highly variable feed quality and availability, and everything else nature throws at them. Genetics that can’t cope with those conditions tend to drop out in these situations. The feedlot sector is more intensive and could likely get more out of those genetics.
Our marketing systems are also like apples and tumbleweeds. With pigs, poultry and dairy, the producer who decides (or is instructed) what genetics to use also sells the eggs, milk or slaughter-ready bird or pig. Their customer provides a clear economic incentive for product quality. Cow-calf producers who don’t retain ownership are paid for weaning weight, and are incentivized to maintain fertility and longevity. Focusing too much on better feedlot performance, feed efficiency or carcass merit genetics could lead to a tradeoff in fertility or longevity. Feedlot producers would undoubtedly love to see higher efficiency, growth and carcass quality genetics. But they rarely produce their own calves and only buy a fraction of their calves directly from the farm. So, the feedlot sector works the “environment” side of the equation by sorting weaned calves into finishing, backgrounding, or grass yearling systems based on sex, weight and breed-type, and tailor their diet and management to get the most out of the genetics they think they bought.
But the genetic quality of Canada’s beef cattle is improving behind the scenes. Most cow-calf buyers may not be deliberately seeking improved genetics for growth or carcass quality. But if they’re buying yearling bulls from breeders who are selecting for those traits, then those improved genetics are feeding into the whole system.
Here’s the evidence. After ignoring marbling for decades, Canada adopted the U.S. marbling standards in 1996. Between 1997 and 2023, the percent of youthful Canadian beef carcasses falling into the lowest two quality grades (A and AA marbling) dropped from 72% to 26%, while the two highest quality grades (AAA and Prime) rose from 28% to 74%. Carcass quality is improving. So is growth. Over the same period, average carcass weights for steers and heifers increased by 5.5 and 4.4 pounds per year. These increases add up. By 2023, steer and heifer carcasses weighed 20% more than they did in 1997. As an aside, that’s partly why beef supply hasn’t dropped as fast as cow numbers – each carcass produces more beef. Producing more beef from each animal has also played a major role in helping shrink the environmental footprint of Canada’s beef industry.
Make no mistake – improved quality grades and carcass weights were due to a lot of things, including packer premiums for quality grade, smaller penalties for heavy carcasses, longer days on feed, changes in breed composition (including the recent adoption of beef on dairy crosses), growth promotants and feeding practices.
But genetic improvement has played a role. Breed associations calculate “genetic trends.” A genetic trend estimates how much of the change in a trait (like carcass weight or marbling score) is due to genetics alone, once some very complicated math has been used to take environmental and management effects out of the equation. Genetic trends for carcass traits aren’t always (or only) based on actual carcass data; they often rely heavily on live animal measurements (e.g., yearling weight or ultrasound measurements). They aren’t the same as carcass measurements, but they’re very good predictors and are easier to collect in large numbers. But that also means they’re independent evidence – they’re based on a different data set than packer grading data. The important point is that the genetic trends for marbling and carcass weight in Canada’s purebred Charolais, Hereford, Simmental and Angus cattle mirror the changes seen in the grading data – they have also generally trended up over time.
Bottom Line: Cattle can’t grow or marble if they don’t have the genetic potential to do so. Genetic selection for improved growth and marbling has allowed Canada’s beef industry to produce higher quality beef, more efficiently.
So what does this mean… to you? You might not have intended to buy genetics with improved growth or carcass quality. But if your breeder has been selecting for them, you’ve gotten them as part of the package (and so have your feedlot customers). We’ll revisit these opportunities in a future column.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Supplementation Matters - Navigating Trace Mineral Requirements of a Beef Herd 🎙️
Trace mineral deficiencies can lead to production declines, animal health events and reproductive wrecks.
How can I best meet the mineral requirements of my beef herd? It comes as no surprise that the answer to this question is not a simple one. There are many factors impacting the mineral requirements of beef cattle such as stage of production, age and body condition. These are further compounded by the bioavailability of the mineral source provided and any antagonists that may be present in the diet.
Regional variations in the trace mineral content of forages and soils create high risk areas where trace mineral deficiencies are more likely to occur. Supplemental sources need to be provided to prevent production declines, animal health events or reproductive wrecks.
Copper deficiency in mature beef cows is an issueacross Canada
Recently published data from work led by Dr. Cheryl Waldner with the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon, SK, showed 64% of mature beef cows in Western Canada and 59% of mature beef cows in Eastern Canada have less than adequate copper status1. This is based on data collected in 2019.
“One of the trends we saw with the copper data was that it looked a bit more regional in the younger cows. But when we looked at the mature cows, the extent of the problem across the country became really apparent,” Dr. Waldner explains. “If you are a cow-calf producer in Canada, you need to worry about copper supplementation in your herd regardless of your location.”
Dr. Van Mitchell and his team at Metzger Veterinary Services in Ontario performed trace mineral screening tests in 2023 on calves coming into Ontario feedlots. They found that 56% of calves sourced from Western Canada (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta) were marginal or deficient in copper. This is compared to 33% of Ontario calves falling in the same category.
“Generally, for copper deficient cattle, we attribute this to poor forage quality, little to no mineral intake or high sulfate or molybdenum in the diet,” he explains.
Dr. Andrew Acton with Deep South Animal Clinic in Ogema, SK, says copper deficiency is the most common one he has observed through his practice and notes it can also be one of the hardest to correct.
“Everything is an interrelation between copper, molybdenum and sulfur. An imbalance in one can cause problems with the others,” he explains.
The research from Dr. Waldner’s group also evaluated molybdenum levels in beef cows and found significant regional variation. Molybdenum is found in soils and in plants, and it can tie up copper. This means if molybdenum is present in the forage, any copper that is also there is no longer available for use by the animal. This results in secondary copper deficiency.
“If you are a cow-calf producer in Canada, you need to worry about copper supplementation in your herd regardless of your location.”
– Dr. Cheryl Waldner, Western College of Veterinary Medicine
A primary mineral deficiency occurs when cattle are consuming a diet devoid of that mineral.
A secondary mineral deficiency occurs when cattle are consuming enough of a specific mineral to meet requirements, but mineral antagonists are present in the diet which interfere with the normal absorption of that mineral.
In addition to molybdenum, high sulphate levels present in water sources or in some alternative feeds, can further limit the bioavailability of copper in the diet. Therefore, despite supplementation, many herds may still be deficient.
Selenium status is a regional concern
When it comes to selenium, 73% of cows in Eastern Canada and 33% of cows in Western Canada have serum selenium levels of 0.8 ppm or less, which is considered less than adequate.
“There are a few smaller areas across Western Canada where we see a problem, basically west of Highway 2 in Alberta and into BC. But the big thing that came out of those maps is how much more common selenium deficiency is in Eastern Canada,” Dr. Waldner explains, adding that for producers in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes, the increased regional risk of low selenium needs to be considered when evaluating a mineral supplementation program.
“It is a soil-derived issue,” says Dr. Mitchell, “and it is definitely the largest problem we see (in terms of mineral deficiency) in Ontario-sourced calves. It is a big contributor to bad calf scours outbreaks, calves that are weak born and poor immune responses.”
In addition, most forages and crops grown in Ontario are deficient in selenium, meaning that without supplementation, cattle are not receiving adequate amounts from their diet.
“Our area [south-central Saskatchewan] is not typically deficient in selenium, and we are a little more likely to see selenium in excess in some herds,” Dr. Acton notes. “When we do see issues, it is likely related to drought conditions and certain plants being consumed.”
Selenium responds predictably with supplementation, in that body levels go up relatively quickly when supplementation is provided. However, producers need to ensure that intakes are adequate and the right level of trace minerals are formulated into the product.
“If producers get a load of mineral that is not designed for a selenium deficient area, there is not enough selenium in there. Even if cows consume adequate amounts based on the label, it’s still not enough,” Dr. Mitchell cautions.
Consequences of a trace mineral deficiency
Trace mineral deficiencies can take months to manifest into clinical symptoms, depending on factors such as diet, water quality or health status, says Dr. Acton. Symptoms observed are often not unique to any specific deficiency and can include low conception rates, late-term abortions, poor-performing cattle despite high-quality feed, reduced immune response or rough hair coats.
Many trace minerals, such as copper and zinc, are essential for pregnancy, and when cow requirements are not met, they are at an increased risk of being open in the fall.
Both Dr. Acton and Dr. Mitchell stress that supplementation during gestation is one key timeframe which impacts both calf and cow health and production as well as the cows future reproductive performance.
“During gestation, the cow will sacrifice some of her own body stores of trace minerals for the fetus, and, in some cases, the calf will be born with adequate levels while the cow is now deficient because of it,” Dr. Acton says.
“When a cow is deficient during gestation, that calf is also born deficient. And when they get a poor start, it’s going to affect them for their entire productive life,” Dr. Mitchell explains. “It is common practice to provide a selenium injection to a calf at birth, but these will often take four to seven days to have a positive effect on a deficiency. So, doing it at birth may be too late in a truly deficient calf; the focus needs to be on the pregnant cow.”
“It is common practice to provide a selenium injection to a calf at birth, but these will often take four to seven days to have a positive effect on a deficiency. So, doing it at birth may be too late in a truly deficient calf; the focus needs to be on the pregnant cow.”
– Dr. Van Mitchell, Metzger Veterinary Services
Good trace mineral nutrition becomes even more important in younger cows. These animals are still growing themselves and must balance what they are putting into their calf while still meeting their own needs.
“Another aspect is the impact of trace minerals on immune system function, both in terms of the risk of animals getting sick and how they are able to respond to the vaccines we are giving them,” Dr. Waldner explains.
“The immune system is very complicated, and we need all aspects of it to be firing,” she says. “There’s evidence to show that trace mineral nutrition is important for both the parts of the immune system that create antibodies to the vaccine and the parts of the immune system that directly impact the cells that are important to the immune system response.”
When cows and calves do not have adequate trace mineral levels, their ability to respond to vaccinations is reduced.
Monitoring a beef herd’s trace mineral status
There are several tests available that can be used in diagnosing trace mineral deficiencies, which include serum samples and liver biopsies. Using these tools in routine testing can help identify potential production-limiting situations, but must be done with a full understanding of the limitations and how to interpret the results.
“In the case of copper, the liver is the gas tank, and the bloodstream is the fuel line. The gas tank supplies the fuel line, so if the fuel line is low, then it means copper levels are very low or close to being deficient,” Dr. Acton explains.
“When we are looking at a herd problem to start with, the serum samples are a nice screening test,” he says. “If we take 10 or 20 samples and we see 30% deficient, we know we have a big problem going on because more of them are probably deficient than that.”
Dr. Waldner adds that “blood tests are quicker, easier and typically cheaper. Due to this, we are more likely to sample more cows from a wide range of management groups than when we sample liver.”
“In the case of copper, the liver is the gas tank, and the bloodstream is the fuel line. The gas tank supplies the fuel line, so if the fuel line is low, then it means copper levels are very low or close to being deficient.”
– Dr. Andrew Acton, Deep South Animal Clinic
She says a lot of producers are using free choice supplementation, which results in a high variation in trace mineral intakes. “When the mineral status of the cow herd is very variable, doing a small number of potentially more sensitive liver tests could miss the extent of the problem.”
Blood sample being collected. Photo credit: Dr. Andrew Acton.
Serum levels of trace minerals will fluctuate depending on the consistency of mineral intake, cautions Dr. Mitchell, adding that a deficient animal might actually show adequate levels with a blood test if the liver has recently mobilized stored levels to compensate for the deficiency.
While blood samples are an excellent first step in monitoring a herd’s mineral status, the use of liver biopsies is recommended when it comes to determining mineral supplementation requirements or if an acute issue is observed within the herd.
“To know how much to supplement, the liver stores need to be known, which is where liver biopsies come into play. They allow for the precise measurement of essential nutrient levels and detection of deficiencies or toxicities that are not easily identified through external signs or routine blood tests,” Dr. Waldner says.
When to test for trace mineral status
When clinical signs are presented, or a herd is experiencing less than optimal production performance, liver or blood samples are recommended by all experts as part of the diagnoses process. The results can also highlight potential nutritional issues for a given feeding period.
Evaluating the trace mineral status of a beef herd at fall pregnancy checking should allow ample time to adjust supplementation to correct any identified deficiencies prior to calving.
“If we are seeing issues with weak born or stillborn calves, this gives an indication that the issue is with winter feeding. If calves are born healthy, bright and alert, but after weaning get sick and we have high pull rates, now we are looking at summer nutrition,” advises Dr. Mitchell.
Some producers may want to evaluate the trace mineral status of their herds routinely to ensure formulated rations are meeting requirements.
Dr. Waldner and Dr. Acton suggest that monitoring trace mineral status at fall pregnancy checking is ideal. Testing at this point should allow ample time to adjust supplementation to correct any identified deficiencies prior to calving.
Work with your veterinarian and nutritionist to ensure the trace mineral requirements of your herd are being met.
References
1 Waldner, C., McLeod, L., Parker, S., and Campbell, J. 2023. Update on copper and selenium in Canadian cow-calf herds: regional differences and estimation of serum reference values. Translational Animal Science, 7(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txad062
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Dive into the Top Five Canadian Beef Cattle Podcast Episodes 🎙️
The Beef Cattle Research Council launched the Canadian Beef Cattle Podcast in January 2024. Every Tuesday episodes are released covering a variety of topics ranging from animal health and productivity to forage and feed management and more.
With more than 25 episodes available to date, we count down the five most popular episodes that you won’t want to miss!
As high open rates were recorded in many areas across Western Canada last year, this episode focuses on practical management and production strategies that can be implemented today to set up your beef herd for success.
Calving season comes with many challenges. Careful planning becomes important, not only to help calves hit the ground healthy, but also in benefiting producers, both physically and mentally. Listen to this episode to find out simple tips and tricks for managing the stresses of the calving season.
Managing grasslands through drought is not an easy task, but having a plan going in, monitoring pastures and being willing to adapt as the weather changes can prevent pasture decline. Discover tools to help you know when to turn cattle out and how to make decisions that support the long-term productivity of pastures.
This episode highlights how Canadian beef producers continue to make significant progress in improving environmental sustainability of their operations thanks largely to research and extension efforts.
Being a smaller operator can pose challenges when managing a beef herd. Time is often limited and, as with most operations, the purse strings can be tight. Check out this episode for five management tips that can make a big impact on the bottom line for small operations.
Like what you hear? Rating and reviewing the podcast will help it reach more Canadian beef producers. Think it deserves fewer than five stars? Please email us at info@beefresearch.ca with feedback and suggestions.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Birds and Bees and Breeding Beef Cattle: Two New Webpages Cover Breeding Cow and Bull Management 🎙️
The goal of a cow-calf operation should be for each breeding female to deliver a healthy calf to weaning every year. While this sounds like a simple, straightforward outcome, there is a long list of variables that must fall into place before that can happen.
In addition to maintaining a cow herd that is productive in the short term, a breeding program should support the objectives of your farm over the long term. Whether a producer is aiming to raise commercial or purebred breeding stock, effective reproductive management should sustain continued improvements in genetics and production potential.
Maintaining breeding momentum can be the difference between setbacks and success in a beef herd. Determining your breeding season will ultimately determine when the calving season will occur (winter, spring, fall, summer). Labour availability, feed resources, infrastructure, weather and marketing goals are all important considerations.
The balance between reproductive success and failure depends on:
Beef cow nutritional status
Calving distribution
Bull management or artificial insemination (AI) practices
The average length of time it takes a cow to be ready for re-breeding following calving is 50 to 80 days in most beef herds (80 to 100 for heifers). Cows calving late one year due to a reproductive problem are significantly more likely to be open the next year, making it important to “front-load” the breeding and calving seasons to ensure more cows calve earlier.
Having a defined breeding season, where a bull is placed with the cow herd and removed after approximately three cycles, can help producers achieve a calving distribution of 60 to 90 days in length.
Studies show there are economic benefits to having at least 60% of cows and heifers become pregnant during the first 21-day cycle. This leads to improved calf health and marketing management thanks to a more uniform calf crop of a similar age. A good benchmark to aim for is 85% of calves arriving by the end of the second cycle and 95% by the end of the third cycle.
Nutrition and Body Condition Scoring
Nutrition is the most important factor affecting cow fertility. Maintaining an ideal body condition score (BCS) of 3 will help ensure a cow maximizes her productivity by producing a calf every 365 days.
The nutritional requirements of beef cows will change depending on stage of reproduction. A common rule of thumb is to provide cows with 55-60-65% Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) during mid-gestation, late-gestation and lactation.
Test water and feed to ensure that there are no nutritional deficiencies or anti-quality factors that may affect nutrient intake and the type of trace mineral supplementation required.
Bulls represent a significant investment to the herd. Careful year-round management will ensure bulls are at peak performance when breeding season arrives and can help achieve longevity.
An appropriate bull-to-cow ratio can be anywhere from 1:20 and 1:30, however that can depend on terrain, total number of animals in a breeding field, social behaviour/dominance and other factors.
To optimize bull breeding, consider the following:
Prior to breeding, have your veterinarian perform a Bull Breeding Soundness Exam (BBSE) on your sires.
Ensure your bulls are up to date with herd vaccinations and, when possible, vaccinate bulls three to four weeks before breeding season.
Manage nutrition to avoid over- or under-conditioning, which can have a negative impact on a bull’s breeding ability.
Be mindful of biosecurity and quarantine new bulls entering your herd, avoid sharing bulls, and be sure bulls are coming from a reputable source.
Avoid spreading venereal disease by purchasing virgin bulls and/or testing for diseases such as trichomoniasis.
One of the most important things producers can do during breeding season is to monitor their cattle for signs of trouble in order to prevent a breeding wreck. Bull lameness or injury, or a less subtle issue such as fever, can be hard to detect, but left unmanaged may devastate reproductive rates.
Reproductive Record-Keeping and Pregnancy Checking
According to the Western Canadian Cow-Calf Surveillance Network, data from 2014-2017 showed that 50% of herds had less than 6% of cows and 8% of heifers unbred at pregnancy testing. Keeping good records is important to set targets and production goals, understand pregnancy rates in your herd, identify issues and track genetic progress over time.
Producers who have a veterinarian pregnancy check the herd each year are more likely to identify problems when it is still possible to determine a cause and potentially limit future losses. Pregnancy checking also allows producers to strategically manage the open cows in the herd. Input your on-farm pregnancy checking data into the BCRC’s Economics of Pregnancy Testing Beef Cattle Calculator to help determine what options make the most sense.
Have you grappled with high open rates?Read this BCRC post to learn more about how to bounce back from a tough preg-check.
Managing for an effective and efficient breeding cow herd is critical to the short-term and long-term success, profitability and productivity of a cow-calf operation. Mindful management of females as well as breeding bulls will pay off at preg-checking time.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Water Systems on Pasture: An Eastern Canadian Beef Producer Perspective 🎙️
One of the major limitations to grazing new paddocks, pastures or intensifying grazing systems is ensuring beef cattle have a consistent source of clean water. Access to natural surface water, such as rivers and streams, can be a major asset in watering system implementation. However, reducing and managing cattle access is recommended to prevent damage to water banks.
Research has demonstrated improved performance in cattle when provided water pumped into tanks or troughs. Calves grow more efficiently, and they have less exposure to pathogens. Additionally, it limits excess nutrients and bacteria from entering the riparian area.
Many different systems and configurations are possible, even in remote areas without access to electrical power, through use of solar- or wind-powered options. For producers interested in installing a new watering system, several factors should be considered, including the water source, time of year, water capacity required and location.
The BCRC’s Water Systems Calculator is a useful tool producers can use to estimate the economics associated with installing a new pumped watering system based on their unique situation.
In Eastern Canada, one of the most common ways of delivering water to pastures is by pumping water from a drilled well through a pipeline system. Pipelines can be buried below the frost line or remain above ground and be removed during winter. An above-ground system works efficiently for rotational grazing setups where many quick-connect couplings can be added along the line and the water trough can be moved with the cattle. Of course, individual producers will have their own unique requirements for a watering system.
The following producer profiles highlight different ways pasture watering systems are used on-farm in Eastern Canada.
Dandy Little Farm- Joggins, Nova Scotia
The original pond with the refilling water tote. It measures 170 x 60 feet and is 15 feet at its deepest. Photo credit: Katie Trottier.
Dandy Little Farm, located outside of Amherst, Nova Scotia, is operated by Mandy and Dan da Costa, who have been farming beef cattle since 2015. Promoting environmental sustainability and reducing their carbon footprint are major goals for their operation, which they manage through optimizing grazing, reducing inputs and minimizing a reliance on machinery to move feed and manure. Mandy is also a chef that aims to produce an excellent product for their direct-sale consumers.
Their herd of 35 cows primarily consists of Lowline Angus, with a few commercial cows from their initial herd purchase, whose genetics suit their needs for a low-input, pasture-based system. They calve once a year on pasture in late spring. They have been using careful grazing to re-establish healthy and productive pasture on 40 acres of land, which had been left fallow for several years before they purchased it. The da Costas also have an additional eight acres of pastureland and 120 acres of woodlot. They keep cattle on pasture year-round.
Ensuring good-quality water is available consistently is a key component of being able to maintain their cattle outdoors in all seasons. In 2017 and 2018, they dug two multi-purpose ponds with the original intent of storing water, feeding a well for livestock watering and recreational use. This evolved to include watering on pasture by pumping water from a vertical well to a stock tank in different pastures. Water moves from the ponds, to the well, to a tote and finally to a stock tank that is moved with the herd.
The original pond with the refilling water tote. It measures 170 x 60 feet and is 15 feet at its deepest. Photo credit: Katie Trottier.
The typical stock tank setup of the da Costas’. Photo credit: Dan da Costa.
The second smaller pond, approximately 80 x 50 feet and 20 feet deep. Photo credit: Katie Trottier.
The location for the ponds was chosen based on observation of persistent natural water presence in a lower part of a field. “In hindsight, we would have put the ponds on higher ground, so tanks are gravity-fed. At the time, we only knew what we knew. I would say the biggest part of this is understanding your landscape and walking your property. You need to understand your landscape,” Mandy emphasized.
Dan suggests walking the land during different seasons and years, time permitting, and taking advantage of online tools, like Google Earth, that can offer information from different times. They state that understanding how surface water is naturally moving on the land should be the biggest factor in pond and culvert placement. The culvert that empties from the original pond follows the naturally occurring ditch, which Dan suggests was an error as it contributes to water entering the adjacent pasture. In hindsight, he would have situated the culvert to exit the pond in a manner that contributed to less seepage in the pasture.
A Google Earth image of the ponds supplied by Dan da Costa. The blue line indicates the natural ditch that drains into a pasture. The small black square shows the location of the vertical well relative to the ponds.
Another recommended step from the da Costas would be hiring the expertise needed. “Hiring someone who knows what they are doing has been a key part of this,” Dan notes. “We could have rented an excavator and tried to do it ourselves, but it was so much more efficient to find people who know how to do this. The contractors that we hired have been doing this for decades and were finished in a matter of days.”
Lastly, the da Costas suggest lots of brainstorming before any pond is dug. Consider all the details of the planned use, including what are potential future developments that might affect your decision on the location or design of your watering system.
Peter Kotzeff, Bruce County, Ontario
Improving soil and water quality through cattle grazing, crop rotation, minimal tillage and cover crops is the mission of semi-retired veterinarian Dr. Peter Kotzeff. He raises cattle in Southwestern Ontario’s Grey and Bruce counties. Spanning over 2,000 acres, his farm consists of one quarter pastureland, one quarter woodlands, wetlands and river riparian area and one-half cash crops.
Aeration and pump windmill set up on a pond. Photo credit: Peter Kotzeff.
His commercial 150-head cow herd is maintained outdoors year-round so, therefore, water quality and access are integral to his operation’s success. He has utilized a variety of watering systems over the years, including ponds, windmill pumps, drilled wells and sloughs. His properties also encompass eight kilometers of the Saugeen River, plus numerous natural creeks and streams, which are fenced off to deny cattle access.
During the summer, Peter utilizes rotational grazing on large paddocks set up with water troughs. These paddocks are strip-grazed with cattle being moved every one to three days.
“It takes anywhere from 40 to 70 days to make a full rotation around the grazing cell,” he says.
On these paddocks, above-ground water lines are used with the water sourced from a drilled well with a pressure tank, a pond with a windmill pump or, at one location, a pond with a windmill pumping water to a holding tank located at the farm’s highest point. With this system, the water is then gravity-fed through above-ground lines to troughs in the different paddocks. A backflow pipe ensures the holding tank is never overfilled.
A holding tank is positioned on the property’s highest elevation. The tank is filled from a pond with a windmill pump, and gravity feeds to water troughs below. Photo credit: Peter Kotzeff.
Water troughs filled from gravity fed above-ground water lines linked to a holding tank are utilized during summer grazing. Photo credit: Peter Kotzeff.
Since a lot of his land has access to natural surface water sources, Peter has set up locations with point source watering sites. These are areas where most of the river or stream has been fenced off, and there is only one point where cattle have access to the water.
To protect the water bank, gravel or crushed rock is layered on top of filter cloth at point source water site. Photo credit: Peter Kotzeff.
“Often these are places that I can crossover from one paddock to the next as well,” he explains.
Fences are set up to strip graze the paddock around the access site.
Before allowing cattle entry to many of these point source water locations, a layer of filter cloth is laid down topped with crushed stone or gravel. This is gently sloped to the water’s edge and prevents damage to the river or stream bank.
This summer, Peter is also trying out a fourth summer watering system which is a portable, solar-powered water trough. This will increase flexibility and adaptability to different situations. As an example, instead of going through the work of setting up a point-source watering system, “the idea is that I will be able to place the water trough close to the river or stream that’s been fenced, put the hose in and pump the water directly to the trough,” he says, adding that the cattle will no longer need direct access to the river at these sites.
A portable solar powered water trough can be set up at various watering sites. Photo credit, Peter Kotzeff.
To maintain continuous cover and improve soil quality, Peter plants cover crops, which his cattle graze in the fall. Movable electric fences are set up to section off areas of the fields, with a portable corral system used for loading and unloading cattle. Existing watering systems in adjacent pastures are utilized whenever possible, including point source water sites. Above-ground water lines cannot be used during this fall grazing period due to freezing.
When the cover crop grazing is further away from an established pasture, the cattle are allowed direct access to shallow sloughs. Since these sloughs are only grazed for a couple of months every four to five years, damage from cattle is minimal.
As the cow herd is housed outside during the winter, he uses the point source sites, as they are the most consistent and do not rely on electricity. However, there are adaptations necessary to make this system work during cold weather. Keeping the water source open is a challenge with point-source locations during the winter.
When the river or streams freeze over, they must be manually broken. Portable windbreaks help to control snow drifts around the area. When a point-source location is not available, water will be pumped from a drilled well.
Point source watering site during the winter. Photo credit: Peter Kotzeff.
“In the summertime, a backup plan is really important, because if it’s August and 30 degrees and your system breaks down, it could be catastrophic,” Peter says.
He tries to ensure there is a pond or stream close to the paddock or on the same grazing cell, that he can move the cows to if needed. At the locations with windmills, he has a portable gas water pump on site to use as a backup in case of long stretches of calm weather during the hottest days of the summer.
To improve water access, he dug another pond this spring and a few more are planned next year. He plans to strategically build big ponds in places where it’s hard to access water from other sources, fence off the pond and use the portable solar water trough system when the cattle are grazed in that area.
Peter reminds other beef producers that there is no “one size fits all” watering system, and the systems that work for him might not be the best approach for others. It is important to be adaptable and flexible when evaluating different options.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Comparing Tame Forages Under Grazing 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the June 2024 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Since 2013, Canada has not required any testing or merit assessments before allowing a new forage variety to be registered. That has made it easier for breeders to get new varieties on the market but has made it harder for producers to know whether the new varieties are any better than (or as good as) the old ones.
Regional variety trials helped to fill this information gap, but these trials only focused on yield and sometimes forage quality. Forage performance under grazing is rarely examined. That’s important because mechanical plot harvesters don’t selectively graze, trample plants or deposit manure the way cattle do. Grazing trials take a long time and are very costly, but they provide very important information.
Dr. Bart Lardner and colleagues recently published the results of a forage variety grazing trial conducted at the University of Saskatchewan’s Livestock and Forage Centre of Excellence (Evaluation of cool-season perennial forage varieties as monocultures and legume–grass binary mixtures under intensive grazing; doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2023-0093).
What They Did
The team seeded tap-rooted alfalfa (Cronus), two creeping rooted alfalfas (3006 and Foothold), sainfoin (AC Mountainview), meadow bromegrass (AC Armada) and orchardgrass (AC Killarney), as well as each two-way grass-legume mixture. That adds up to 14 sets of plots (six monocultures plus eight mixes). Each individual plot was 21m wide by 125m long, the plots were seeded next to each other, then the whole area was fenced into a paddock. This was repeated three times, so there were three paddocks, each containing 14 adjacent plots. Over the next three years they collected samples for forage yield and quality during the grazing season. They also measured “etiolated growth” (an estimate of how much energy the plant has stored in the crown and roots to power spring regrowth) in 2020 and 2021. The amount of time cattle spent grazing each plot was also monitored.
What They Learned
Weather:Total precipitation for May through September at this location usually averages 200 mm. The plots were seeded in 2018’s drought (106 mm). The first two grazing years saw normal rainfall (212 and 199 mm) before the drought returned in 2021 (103 mm). So, these plots were established and grazed under challenging conditions.
Forage yieldreflected the rainfall, with highest yields in year two. Over all three years, 3006 alfalfa was the most productive legume (2.3 T/ha) and Mountainview sainfoin was the least productive (1.5 T/ha). Cronus and Foothold alfalfas were intermediate (2 T/ha). Meadow bromegrass outyielded orchardgrass (1.5 vs. 0.7 T/ha). Yields of the two-way mixtures ranged from 0.9 to 1.5 T/ha and were not statistically different. That’s because bromegrass produced more yield than the legume in mixed plots, while higher yielding legumes helped make up for the lower yielding orchardgrass.
Forage quality: Alfalfa had higher protein and energy (TDN) and lower fiber (ADF and NDF) than sainfoin, the legumes had higher protein and energy and less fiber than the grasses, and orchardgrass had less fiber than bromegrass.
Grazing preferencewas highest for the straight alfalfa plots, while straight orchardgrass was the least preferred. The other varieties and mixtures were in between, but alfalfa-meadow brome crosses were generally preferred, and mixtures involving sainfoin or orchard grass were least preferred. This is interesting, as both sainfoin and orchardgrass had reasonable nutritional quality. Mountainview sainfoin may have been a bit less attractive to the animals because it was slightly more mature when grazing started. The effects of variety or mixture on cattle gains couldn’t be calculated, because each paddock contained all of the mixtures. No bloat was observed.
Etiolated growth (energy stores for spring regrowth) was also influenced by growing conditions. All forages stored similar amounts of plant energy in 2020 (the wet year). In the 2021 drought, energy stores were much lower in alfalfa (60% lower than in 2020), sainfoin (80% lower), meadow bromegrass (77% lower) and orchardgrass (86% lower).
So what does this mean… to you?
This was only one three-year project at one site in one soil zone, but it illustrates a couple of important points. The risk of bloat makes some producers reluctant to take advantage of alfalfa’s high yield and forage quality, but using a mixed alfalfa-grass stand is a way to get the quality, yield and palatability benefits of alfalfa while reducing bloat risk. In contrast, sainfoin is a bloat-safe legume, but Mountainview may not perform as well as alfalfa under drought conditions. Although Killarney orchard grass had a high nutritional value, it was not overly drought tolerant or palatable. Finally, the etiolated growth results are a sad reminder that severe drought during one growing season means that forages will have lower energy stores the next spring. That means less and slower regrowth early in the growing season requiring some tough decisions about balancing the need for feed with optimal turnout dates and stocking rates.
Bottom Line
Just because a new variety is registered doesn’t automatically mean that it’s better, and good yields in a plot harvest trial doesn’t mean it will stand up under grazing.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Optimizing Pasture Health: A Practical Guide to Implementing "Take Half, Leave Half" Grazing ▶️🎙️
Dr. Breeanna Kelln, University of Saskatchewan adjunct professor
When making changes to your beef cattle operation, starting with simple manageable steps is the key to long-lasting improvements. This is the case when it comes to the concept of “take half, leave half,” which is a basic rule of thumb for grazing management that can be effectively implemented in any region, in good weather years and bad.
In a recent video from the BCRC, Dr. Breeanna Kelln, adjunct professor at the University of Saskatchewan and a farmer/cow-calf producer north of Regina, demonstrated two methods to determine available forage and how to estimate when 50% has been utilized. Kelln explains, “Leaving behind some green material is important to ensure that plant can still photosynthesize and take energy back down into those roots so the pasture can persist and overwinter.”
https://youtu.be/r3Dgk21Skpk?feature=shared
Take Half, Leave Half – Method 1
Method 1 uses height as a quick and easy strategy to estimate the forage volume available to graze. Simply measure the height of your desirable forage in approximately 20 different spots, record the average height and then move cattle off that stand once that average height is cut in half.
Take Half, Leave Half – Method 2
Method 2 uses weight, which is more labour-intensive but more accurate to assume when 50% of the plant material is utilized. This entails cutting a few samples of forage from the pasture as close to the ground as possible, binding the bottom with an elastic band, and then finding the middle point by balancing the sample on your finger until the forage rests even and straight. Finally, cut off the plant material at the top, which allows for a visual representation of what the growing plants will look like once 50% of the plant material, based on weight, has been utilized.
Either method is an effective way to begin to recognize what you are starting with and what 50% utilization actually looks like.
Key Considerations
Only look and measure the main nutritive forage in the pasture stand. Do not include undesirable or antinutritional weeds or plant material.
Take measurements before cattle are let onto that field, ideally immediately before introducing them to the new piece.
The more you graze, the more time that pasture needs to rest.
Knowing the plant species in your pasture can help you to strategically graze throughout the season.
When taking these pre-grazing measurements, be sure you are only including the portion of the pasture that will be consumed by cattle. For example, if your pasture is half weeds and half forage, grazing the forage right down to the ground while the weeds remain untouched is not the “take half, leave half” principle. In this case, you would only consider the desirable forage portion of the pasture, which accounts for 50% of plant mass, meaning that 25% of the total plant mass on the field will be utilized to effectively apply “take half, leave half.”
While “take half, leave half” can be used as a guide, “the amount you graze is really determined by how long you’re able to rest that plant,” says Kelln. She adds that grazing 60%, 70% or 80% of top growth material can be okay as long as that pasture has time to regrow. “The more you take off the more time that pasture needs to rest.”
The University of Saskatchewan professor defines overgrazing as a function of time and not allowing pasture the time it needs to recuperate in order to be grazed again or survive the winter. “If we take off too much top plant and don’t allow adequate time to rest while it’s actively growing, then we are at risk of those plants dying off and having undesirable species coming into the pasture as well as productivity decline.”
Click to enlarge.
Not allowing for adequate rest can also have animal health implications such as increased parasite loads and unideal selection behaviours, which impact the health and longevity of your pasture long-term.
Kelln goes on to say that if producers want to implement a heavier, more intensive grazing regime and have planned to do so, that can be very successful. But she stresses that it is important to “know what plants are out there, target them at the right time and allow for that rest at the right time.” Grazing a stand harder than intended in a pinch, during a drought, when forage is minimal is when things can get messy.
When it comes to grazing management, know what you have, have a plan, execute that plan to the best of your ability and always have a plan B . . . maybe even a plan C.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Alfalfa Can Be Grazed Safely: Things to Think About Before Turning Cows Out on High-Legume Pastures 🎙️
Including alfalfa in a grazing stand makes sense. The potential benefits include increased soil fertility through nitrogen fixation, improved plant biodiversity, boosted forage yields and improved animal performance. Alfalfa can also be used to create a hedge against poor forage production during dry growing seasons as it is naturally drought tolerant. Recent Canadian research has taken an even closer look into how to improve alfalfa’s resilience to challenging environments.
Even though forage yields and productivity could be increased, producers are often hesitant to seed alfalfa for grazing purposes due to fears of bloating. Experts agree that implementing a few key production principles and paying close attention to a grazing herd can greatly reduce the risk of bloat and provide producers the opportunity to capture the benefits of this legume crop.
Here are some management tips for successfully grazing cattle on alfalfa:
Avoid moving cattle onto new pasture when it’s wet with heavy dew, rainfall or irrigation water. Grazing alfalfa when it is wet increases the possibility of bloat.
Make paddock rotations mid-day or later to help minimize moisture and increase plant carbohydrate concentration.
Do not allow animals to stand hungry before turning them into an alfalfa pasture, as it can lead to overconsumption of fresh alfalfa and increase the risk of bloat.
Wait until alfalfa is in full bloom to graze. Bloat risk is highest when alfalfa is in vegetative to early-bloom stages of growth. As alfalfa enters the full-bloom or post-bloom stages, the alfalfa becomes more fibrous and the rate of digestion slows down.
Do not graze alfalfa for three days to two weeks following a killing frost. Frost may increase the incidence of bloat by rupturing plant cell walls, leading to a high initial rate of digestion. Delay grazing alfalfa until the stand dries.
Make sure to monitor cattle frequently for condition and any signs of bloat or sickness and adjust grazing plans accordingly.
Graze with animals that have smaller rumen capacities, like yearlings and calves, rather than mature cows.
Talk to your veterinarian about the advisability of using a product like Alfasure (mix with water to prevent frothy bloat).
Many producers prefer to avoid bloat by seeding alfalfa-grass mixtures rather than pure alfalfa. Including alfalfa in a pasture forage mix that has more fibrous grasses also provides cattle with a wider feed selection than just straight alfalfa. Depending on the percentage of alfalfa in the mix, this can reduce the risk of bloating. Another strategy can be to include a free-choice fibre source, such as a straw bale, in the alfalfa paddock. This provides an opportunity for the cattle to consume it and help regulate their rumens.
With careful management, producers can reap the rewards of including alfalfa in their grazing programs.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Choosing Forage Varieties Without Getting Lost in the Weeds 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the May 2024 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Henry Ford famously said, “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants, so long as it’s black.” Today’s vehicles have endless options in terms of color, body style, engine, drivetrain and everything else you can imagine. Some people revel in these endless options, enjoy mixing and matching, and “building” exactly what they want. Some of us are put off by all the extra hassle it takes just for the pleasure of dropping a king’s ransom on a new vehicle, and decide we’ve probably got a few more years and a few more thousand miles before the wheels fall off whatever we’re currently driving.
Marketers call that phenomenon “choice paralysis.” It can cause enormous problems for producers wanting to reseed tame perennial pastures and hayfields.
Forage production typically declines as tame pastures get older, especially if moisture, fertility or grazing management are limiting. Over time, legumes die out and less desirable species like bluegrass, dandelions and thistles increase. Eventually, it no longer resembles the “alfalfa-grass” mix that was originally seeded.
But reseeding forages is costly and can be risky, and it’s not always easy to know what forages or varieties to seed next. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency no longer requires experimental yield, quality or agronomic data before new forage varieties are registered. Often, the only information available is data from the breeder or seed company, based on a limited number of sites, and comparing to a historical “control” variety that may not be the industry standard.
How are you supposed to know what to seed? You might be tempted to buy an off-the-shelf forage seed mix, hoping that some of the seed in the blend will germinate, establish and grow where you need it to. But off-the-shelf mixes weren’t designed to meet your precise needs – they were designed with the “average” operation in mind, to meet a price point. If that retail one-size-fits-all doesn’t fit the demands of your situation, then germination, emergence and establishment may suffer and leave you back at square one, and dollars behind.
Sorting out what forage species and blends might work for your situation is difficult. It’ll depend on soil zone, ecoregion, soil texture, soil pH and salinity conditions. It’ll depend on what you want to use it for (e.g., hay, pasture or both). Head-to-head comparisons of different forage varieties can be hard to find, and they’re often very site-specific. Recommended seeding rates will vary because different forage species often have different seed sizes. Seeding rates will also vary depending on whether you’re seeding into an existing stand (and how – e.g., frost seeding vs. sod seeding) or whether you’re starting a whole new stand on bare soil. What weeds are you dealing with and what’s the best strategy to deal with them in a mixed stand?
The answers to all these questions (and more) are available. But if you need to find each answer, figure out which answers are credible and relevant to your soil type, landscape and climate, and piece them all together by yourself… that’s a LOT of work! It might be easier to just leave that old pasture or hay stand alone and complain about the yields.
The good news is that solutions to this challenge exist. Tools like the “Saskatchewan Dryland Forage Species Selection Tool” (early 2000s) and the “Peace Forage Tool” (2014) were developed to help producers make an informed choice about which perennial forage species were suitable for their specific combination of soil type, salinity conditions and production and management systems in Saskatchewan and B.C. These tools were well-received but didn’t help producers elsewhere in Western Canada.
In 2018, the BCRC funded a project led by the Saskatchewan Forage Council to combine the existing Saskatchewan and BC tools, expand them to include additional forage varieties suited to more regions and apply to soil and climate conditions across Western Canada, and offer it as on online tool. The Forage U-Pick tool was launched in 2020. It was also well-received. But it didn’t cover the needs of producers in Central and Atlantic Canada.
So, in 2020, the BCRC funded an Ontario Forage Council project to expand the Forage U-Pick tool and make it nationally relevant. This was no small feat, given that Central and Atlantic Canada don’t have official soil zones, they face different soil challenges (e.g., acidic soils instead of Western Canada’s alkaline or saline soils), different climatic conditions (e.g. high moisture and waterlogging are common and drought is less common) and they have different forage varieties (e.g., Timothy, birdsfoot trefoil and orchard grass, etc.). It was completed in 2023 and is available at upick.beefresearch.ca. It’s also available en francais.
So what does this mean… to you?
Your Check-Off funds a lot of forage breeding work across Canada. The Forage U-Pick tool can help you assess whether these new varieties can fit in your situation.
Bottom Line: Deciding whether or how to reseed a pasture or hay stand can be confusing, costly and risky. The Forage U-Pick tool can help you make better, less risky choices, more easily.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Where There Are Cattle, There Are Parasites: Nine Tips for Managing Parasites in Your Herd 🎙️
Are your cattle itchy and scratchy? Have you noticed reduced feed intake or altered grazing behaviour? These may be signs of a parasite problem in your herd.
Effective parasite management is a balancing act. On one hand, controlling parasites is essential for maintaining cattle health, welfare and productivity. While on the other hand, over-use of some treatment methods can lead to parasite resistance, which negatively impacts the long-term health of the herd and can also affect the environment.
The type of parasites present and the magnitude of the problem will vary based on different factors such as animal health, geography, season and management scenarios. Therefore, it is important to take a multifaceted approach when combating parasites.
Here are nine tips to help manage parasites on your farm:
Tip #1: Meet animal nutritional requirements and maintain cattle in good body condition.
Healthy cattle are less susceptible to the impacts of both internal and external parasites. When cattle are thin or have nutritional deficiencies, their ability to cope with parasites is reduced. Routine feed testing should be implemented to ensure rations are properly balanced and to correct any nutritional deficiencies that may be present.
Tip #2: Implement biosecurity protocols on your farm focused on parasite prevention and control.
New cattle introduced onto your farm can be a source of external and internal parasites that can contaminate your cattle and pastures. Have a proactive biosecurity plan in place, which may mean quarantining new entrants. Isolate and inspect new animals for lice or other parasites, and treat them 10 to 14 days prior to allowing them to join the rest of the cattle to prevent infesting the main herd. When treating, use a combination of control products from two different dewormer classes, such as Ivermectin plus fenbendazole, to minimize the risk of bringing resistant parasites into your farm. Consult your veterinarian to discuss your parasite biosecurity program.
Infective larvae cannot survive for a long time after hatching without being ingested by a host animal so providing a pasture rest period helps to break that cycle. The length of rest periods for pastures will vary depending on factors such as forage species, level of utilization and environmental conditions.
This will allow assessment of internal parasite loads and determine which parasites you need to target. Consult your veterinarian on the most appropriate sampling strategy to use. The results from fecal egg counts must be interpreted in the context of your grazing management, production practices and parasite control regimes.
Correctly identifying the pest that is causing production problems is an important first step to proper management and prevention strategies.
Parasites are more likely to spread when cattle are in close proximity to one another. For example, lice are mainly spread through animal-to-animal contact, and the more crowded animals are, the greater the risk of spread. Ensure adequate stocking density in all locations where cattle are kept.
Overstocked pastures lead to increased contamination with parasite larvae through the buildup of manure. Similarly, when pastures become overgrazed, the cattle ingest a greater amount of parasite larvae due to grazing closer to the fecal pats and closer to the ground where the number of larvae is the highest.
Whenever possible, avoid grazing the same pastures in the fall of one year and the spring of the next. Infective parasite larvae from eggs deposited in manure in the fall may survive the winter and be a source of contamination for cows and calves grazing these pastures in the spring. If rotational grazing is being utilized, consider grazing younger animals first followed by older cows. This will allow the younger, more susceptible animals to graze the cleanest pastures.
Tip #7: Avoid harrowing pastures until the weather is hot and dry.
Harrowing pastures breaks up manure pats and exposes infective larvae and eggs to the elements. When the weather is hot and dry, this can be an effective method of reducing parasite populations. However, harrowing under other conditions will increase the potential exposure of cattle to infective larvae that are scattered from fecal pats across the area.
Tip #8: Cull chronic parasite carriers.
Some cattle (about one to two percent) can be chronic carriers of external parasites, such as lice. These cattle perform poorly and act as a source of reinfection for other animals. Even after treatment, these cattle will remain infected and should be removed from the herd.
Tip #9: Use chemical treatments effectively and responsibly.
There is an assortment of products available on the market developed to control specific parasites through a specific mode of action for a specified length of time. Work with your veterinarian to develop a strategic control program that balances best practices with the practical realities of herd management, and use the five C’s of parasite control:
Use the correct product.
Apply to the correct class of animal.
Apply at the correct time.
Use the correct dose.
Check for efficacy.
It is natural for cattle to have parasites, and you will never be able to eliminate them 100% from your herd. However, implementing simple and effective strategies can help to keep parasite populations low.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
The Best Offense is Defense: 15 Plays to Keep Your Beef Herd Safe 🎙️
As humankind evolved from a nomadic hunter-gatherer society into agricultural-based settlement populations, there is a reason domesticated bovine played a major role as a farmed species. Cattle are hardy and resilient, defending themselves against many potentially harmful viruses, bacteria and parasitic burdens. That said, as their caregivers, there are scenarios where beef cattle producers can help ease that burden by implementing some simple barriers against disease to keep their herds productive and healthy.
1. Grazing leases and shared pastures
Producers can play a proactive role in community grazing situations by ensuring animals with a poor body condition score, or showing signs of possible illness, are not shipped to a community pasture. While there, pasture staff should have a standardized protocol for vaccination, disease identification and treatment while animals are at the community pasture, and they should work closely with a veterinarian when things aren’t looking right.
Remember cattle coming out of community pastures or grazing leases can bring unwanted diseases home like those that cause fetal loss such as bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVD) or infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), even if they appear healthy. To avoid spreading these to the main herd, it is recommended to manage them separately for 3-4 weeks before rejoining the core group.
2. Wildlife contact
Identifying key areas on the farm where beef cattle potentially comingle with wildlife is a key factor when considering the risk of transmission of infectious diseases to a herd. For example, when cattle share pastures and water sources with other cloven-hooved animals such as deer and elk, diseases such as tuberculosis can spread between cohorts. Additionally, close contact with wild birds and other wildlife and their droppings should also be limited as much as possible to prevent cross-contamination between species.
3. Shared trailers and equipment
Farmers often work together in busy seasons to be more efficient with their time and resources. When agreeing with a neighbor to work together, consider having a conversation about the risk factors associated with possible cross-contamination between farms, and make every effort to minimize those risks. Some jumping-off points include ensuring both herds have a similar vaccination and health status and thoroughly cleaning the shared equipment between uses.
4. Horse lending
When lending a hand to the neighbors we often think about cleaning our trailers and washing our boots, but what about horses? When a horse has spent time in a neighboring herd, there should be adequate time and measures taken to ensure they are not bringing home pathogens on their feet or in their respiratory tracts, so some level of quarantine is recommended.
5. Livestock shows
The comingling of people, equipment and animals at 4-H events, local fairs, livestock shows and markets pose a large risk to farming operations. Any animals or equipment returning from these events must be thoroughly cleaned, disinfected and quarantined.
6. Raw colostrum from other farms
Cows from within your own herd will have the best antibody profile in their colostrum to protect your calves from the diseases persistent in your environment. Raw colostrum from other farms, especially dairies, may not include all the antibodies to protect against the diseases that threaten your herd.
Worse than that, it could also contain dangerous viruses, bacteria or parasites that are not part of your environment already. Introducing pathogens such as highly pathogenic avian influenza, Johne’s disease, Cryptosporidium, and scours-causing organisms can cause devastating results. If you have calves that require colostrum but have none from your herd on hand, opt for pasteurized powdered colostrum instead.
7. Custom operators
Custom workers often travel from farm to farm to provide services. While this is convenient and often time-saving for a producer, it also creates a risk if the contractor is not following biosecurity recommendations. Ensure all contractors are aware of your biosecurity protocols and that they are responsible for complying. This can include spraying tires, boot baths and wearing booties on-farm.
8. Farm visitors
Off-farm family and friends are often excited to experience the farm, and beef producers are welcoming and enjoy sharing a glimpse into their lifestyle. When offering access to farm visitors, it is equally important to ensure simple steps are taken to protect the animals on the farm. These may include boot washes, clothing changes and hand washing.
9. Orphaned calves
The economic consequences of having a dry cow for the season are significant. Because of this, it is tempting to adopt a calf from another operation onto a willing mother cow. However, the risks outweigh the reward.
Orphaned calves will carry all the pathogens they have been exposed to on their farm of origin. These pathogens may not harm the orphan calf, as they will have exposure immunity from their herd of origin. Those same pathogens, however, may be novel to your herd and could have devastating consequences for your cows and calves in the forms of scours outbreaks or reproductive wrecks.
10. Service providers
Veterinarians, feed consultants and nutritionists have the best intentions in providing critical advice to help your herd stay healthy and remain profitable. They often travel between farms, so it is crucial they follow biosecurity protocols when entering and leaving the farm.
11. Leased livestock
Custom feeding and leased livestock can help bolster income when needed. Animals that do not originate from your herd will need to be quarantined and placed on the same vaccination program as the rest of your herd, in consultation with your veterinarian, before fully integrating into your herd.
12. Purchased stock
Bulls, replacement heifers and any other newly purchased animals will not have the same immunity as your home herd. They must be properly vaccinated and quarantined to ensure they don’t introduce disease to your herd, or vice versa.
13. Borrowed or purchased nurse cows
Nurse cows can pose a significant threat to the health status of your herd by introducing new pathogens to your calves and cows that they could be naive to. When acquiring a nurse cow from another operation, it is key to allow for an adequate amount of time to properly quarantine and evaluate the health of the incoming animal
14. Different livestock species
Just because an animal is a different species doesn’t mean it cannot still carry or spread disease to the cow herd. Care must be taken when introducing new species onto the farm, such as small ruminants like sheep and goats, pigs and horses.
15. Fence-line contact and shared water
If your cows are sharing a fenceline or a water source with a neighbouring herd, their problems become your problems. Any cattle that are across fence or drinking from the same water source will need to be considered when assessing risk and developing vaccination protocols.
While it is not possible to protect your herd from everything all the time, understanding where the potential breaches are in your biosecurity plan can help identify reasonable changes in management and develop health and vaccination protocols that effectively protect your herd.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Passing the Torch Successfully 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the April 2024 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on the BCRC Blog with permission of the publisher.
Legendary forage breeder Bruce Coulman will be formally inducted into Saskatchewan’s Agricultural Hall of Fame this month. His first research job was with McGill University, whose forage breeding program had collapsed. With no breeding lines to start with, it took Bruce 17 years to develop his first new variety from scratch. He went on to develop 24 new forage varieties over the course of his career before retiring from the University of Saskatchewan. This means he averaged zero new varieties per year for the first 17 years, then one new variety per year from then on.
Forage breeding has an incredibly long runway, so it’s important not to lose momentum. When Bruce was nearing retirement, the beef and forage industries wanted to make sure his forage breeding program wasn’t abandoned. The Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association, Saskatchewan’s forage sector, the BCRC, the provincial government’s Agriculture Development Fund and the university worked together to ensure that Bruce’s position was refilled.
A great candidate was in the wings. Bill Biligetu had been Bruce’s graduate student, so he had learned his forage breeding skills from one of the best. But Bill didn’t grow up on a Canadian cattle or forage operation. Bill grew up in Mongolia. That made him a natural fit for the inaugural class of the BCRC’s Beef Researcher Mentorship Program, which is designed to pair new forage, cattle and beef researchers with Canadian beef producer and industry mentors, familiarize them with how Canada’s industry works, what producers need, how to communicate on a producer level, and how to connect their research interests with industry priorities. Bill’s mentor was Aaron Ivey of Ituna, Saskatchewan. Bill has gone on to develop a very successful research and extension program in his own right. More on that later.
New researchers like Bill also bring their own valuable skills, experiences and perspectives to the table. Look at a map of the world and put one finger from each hand on wherever you’re raising cattle in Canada. Move one finger straight east (or west). Eventually, your finger will get to Mongolia, where Bill grew up. Mongolia is an enormous place at virtually the same latitude as Canada’s cattle country. The Mongolian steppe has a very similar topography to the plains and foothills of Western Canada. Mongolia’s climate is very similar and closely related forage plants grow in both Mongolia and the Canadian prairies. Most of Mongolia is still pastureland, and it has an incredibly long history with a rich livestock and grazing culture. In fact, Bill grew up on horseback in a family of nomadic herders. His family still raises livestock back home, and they’re never sure whether the pictures he sends were taken in Mongolia or Maple Creek — both places look very alike.
When Bill came to the University of Saskatchewan, he didn’t just bring academic qualifications. He also brought his deep understanding of forage, soil, livestock and grazing management, and their value to producers. He’s hit the ground running, and industry has supported his forage research and breeding program. Here are some recent highlights.
What he’s done so far
Here are some of the varieties that Bill’s team has released so far:
CDC Tiznow is the first variety of timothy grass released in western Canada. Timothy is a relatively minor crop in Western Canada but works well in areas prone to spring flooding. Tiznow was the highest-yielding Timonthy variety in recent field trials in Quebec and is available from Nutrien Ag Solutions.
CDC Torsion meadow brome was released in 2020 and licensed to Brett Young Seed. It was selected for higher yields and faster regrowth and has outyielded Fleet, particularly in the dark brown and black soil zones.
AAC Torque hybrid bromegrass was jointly released by Bill and Bruce in 2018. Hybrid bromes combine meadow brome’s superior yields and regrowth with smooth brome’s superior digestibility. AAC Torque has higher yields than either of its predecessors (AC Success and AC Knowles) and is available from Brett Young Seeds.
CDC Salt King is an extremely salt-tolerant hybrid wheatgrass that combines bluebunch wheatgrass’s height and leafiness with the high nutritional value and salt tolerance of quackgrass (while toning down its aggressive spread). It is available from Nutrien Ag Solutions, and has good forage quality, better ergot resistance and yields better than AC Saltlander. CDC Salt King seed is being multiplied at downy-brome-free sites in Northern Saskatchewan and should be available for sale in a few years.
So what does this mean… to you?
The Canadian Beef-Cattle Check-Off you pay helps industry groups like the BCRC ensure that key research programs continue and that new talent is hired and mentored by producers like yourself to do research that supports your long-term productivity and profitability.
Bottom Line: Starting from scratch, it took Bruce 17 years to release his first forage variety. By continuing the University of Saskatchewan’s forage breeding program, Bill’s been able to continue Bruce’s legacy and put out five improved varieties (including a forage barley) in less than 10 years.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
High cattle open rates recorded in areas across Western Canada last year mean affected beef producers should be setting up their herds for success now.
A report from the Western Canadian Animal Health Network (WeCAHN) said that open rates were “all over the map” – from 2 to 3 percent up to 40+ percent in the third quarter of 2023. The averages were a bit higher at 10 to 12 percent versus 8 to 10 percent in 2022.
The Problem
Experts agree it’s a multi-year, multi-factor problem. Drought, early snow and other adverse weather conditions have resulted in poor forage quality and compromised water quality in many regions. The results have manifested in lower calving distribution rates.
“Herds with cows that have good body condition have an open rate of about 5 to 8 percent, and I’ve been hearing stories about herds with poorer body conditions that are as high as 50 percent,” says Barry Yaremcio, a Camrose, Alberta, based independent consulting nutritionist with decades of experience.
Dr. Jason McGillivray says that, in the Kamloops, British Columbia area, the problems started in the 2021-22 winter when there was lower feed quality followed by a dry spring.
“During the pregnancy checks of the fall of 2021, we noticed that more cows were going to be calving later, and the following year, more of those cows were calving later still,” Dr. McGillivray says.
In that area, November 2023 brought a big snowstorm, which disrupted ranchers’ extended grazing programs, which normally would go into January.
A body condition score of 3.0 is ideal, and the Beef Cattle Research Council (BCRC) has resources about scoring including a calculator producers can use to understand how body condition impacts the profitability of their herds at BodyConditionScoring.ca.
“In some of the herds, they had to feed earlier with lower quality hay, and those cows were in poor body condition,” he says. The multiple punches of later calving and an early winter followed by drought meant that open rates were up.
In his area, Dr. McGillivray said another contributing factor in some herds was wolf predation through the breeding and grazing season, which put cows under tremendous stress.
In Brooks, Taber and Lethbridge, Alberta, Dr. Blake Balog says data from his practice indicated that, on average, open rates were about 12 percent for cows and 14 percent for heifers.
“In that mix, we had some pretty high highs and pretty low lows,” he says, adding that shorter breeding seasons had up to 90 percent bred and, on the other end, some groups went to 20 percent open.
“The trend in calving distributions is flatter and flatter,” he says. “Cows may have had good reproductive momentum for a while, but when they go more and more into that second and third cycle, eventually, they just fall off the map.”
In the southeast area of Manitoba, Dr. Kurtis Swirsky says his clients have experienced similar situations, with some chronically affected herds that run higher open rates and some that have lower rates. In 2023, there was an anomaly.
“The common factor with the high open rates was nutrition and water quality,” Dr. Balog says, noting poor-quality forage. He agrees that the three to four years of dry weather contributed to the results.
“This past May was one of the hottest on record and the flies were a big contributing factor to having cows being run down, less likely to cycle and then to get pregnant when they were bred,” Dr. Swirsky says. Generally, producers who pay close attention to body condition and cows have healthier, more resilient cows that have excellent pregnancy rates. Sometimes, bulls are infertile or injured, but mostly it’s about the health of the cows, he says. According to Yaremcio, extreme heat can also affect the bulls’ sperm motility.
“One of the big things this year compared to previous years was that there was a lot of grass, but the energy density was lower,” Dr. Swirsky says, adding that supplementing cattle on pasture prior to turning the bulls out is also an option.
The Solutions
Keeping a close eye on body condition scores and improving nutrition and water quality are some of the best ways to decrease open rates in cows.
Both Dr. Swirsky and Dr. McGillivray point out that making sure the cows have good body condition before being put out on grass is important, even if it costs more in feed.
“The benefits are great – not only will the cows be more likely to get pregnant, they’ll milk better and have heavier calves,” Dr. Swirsky says.
“If you turn your cows out thin you are relying on Mother Nature to supply enough good quality forage to get cows to rebound condition to start cycling and breed,” Dr. McGillivray says. “With the last couple of late, cool, dry springs there has not been enough good forage or time to accomplish this at a desirable first cycle conception rate or overall pregnancy rate.”
Multiple studies have shown earlier bred cows produce calves that are born earlier, are more uniform and healthier and command better prices. The cows themselves are healthier, more productive and live longer. In fact, the BCRC has a video and a Calving Distribution Calculator to help producers determine optimal strategies for their herds.
The industry target is a minimum of 60 percent of females calving within the first cycle. Yaremcio says some of his clients aim for 75 percent or more.
For practical purposes, producers need to balance any increase in revenue with the cost of achieving that outcome. Some of those costs could be:
Pre-partum nutrition management to reach the desired body condition score
An increased risk of open cows
Time, labour and facility if estrus synchronization or artificial insemination is used
The cost of implementing any of these options will vary based on how the operation is set up.
Dr. Balog says the careful genetic selection of cattle to match changing environmental conditions, managing stocking densities and better managing grass will go a long way to helping alleviate problems.
“I’m worried that if producers see good calf prices, they’re going to want to retain more animals to cash in on the other side – but we may not have grass to accomplish that,” he says, adding that his more successful clients have aggressive culling strategies to weed out later calving cows and improve herd quality. Early weaning and better nutritional supplementation for the cows also shows up in improved results.
“In the last few years, improving water quality with structures has been important, too, along with better grazing strategies,” he says.
Body condition management during the winter and alternative grazing strategies including techniques like stubble grazing and cover crops would also help increase feeding options and reduce open rates.
In British Columbia, where Dr. McGillivray practices, the feed options are limited to hay, which is costly – and when it went from $200 to $380 a tonne, some producers limited feeding to save costs.
“Paying $380 a tonne for hay is better than having 20 percent open cows,” he says of the attitude many of his clients took.
Yaremcio also says when you work with the cattle every day it is difficult to recognize changes in condition. Having a second set of eyes on cattle can help evaluate body condition. It can be an extension agent, nutritionist, veterinarian, feed salesman or even a neighbour who comes in for a cup of coffee.
Hands-on body condition scoring is even more accurate, especially for evaluating the cows’ fat stores, and the BCRC has resources to help beef producers with that.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
BCRC’s Producer Survey Helps Check-Off Dollars Go Further and Supports Consumer Confidence 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the March 2024 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
January’s column talked about the Canadian Cow-Calf Survey that the Beef Cattle Research Council is running to help focus our research priorities and extension efforts. But the information from this survey also helps us demonstrate the value of research to government funders and helps support efforts to improve consumer confidence.
The government angle is important because the BCRC stretches the research portion of your Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off dollar as far as we can by matching each Check-Off dollar with one or more government research dollars. Governments are much more likely to (co)fund our projects when they have confidence that industry will use the results, when it makes sense to do so.
The consumer confidence angle is important because consumers enjoy beef – but they don’t want to feel guilty about eating it. Some groups try to reduce or eliminate beef consumption by undermining consumer confidence. These days, “cows produce greenhouse gas” is a prominent guilt strategy to discourage meat consumption, but animal welfare concerns – like the pain experienced during castration – are also popular.
All beef producers understand that castrating bull calves early heads off worse welfare problems (like fighting, injury and unwanted pregnancies) down the road. But castration is still painful, no matter how you do it. Surgical castration is mostly acute pain – it hurts a lot during and immediately after the surgery. The longer-term (chronic) pain diminishes as the wound heals. Band castration may cause less acute pain when the band goes on, but is followed by more chronic pain, then a resurgence of acute pain when the scrotum sloughs off.
Generally, the earlier calves are castrated, the better. Castrating calves in the first few days of life leads to a smaller wound, faster healing and less profound impacts on growth compared to castrating older calves at spring processing, weaning or in the feedlot. There’s also some evidence that newborn calves feel less pain than older calves. Castrating calves as young as possible is generally best for animal welfare, but small, cuddly baby calves also tug at the heartstrings more, if you’re trying to make a consumer feel guilty about eating beef.
Producers couldn’t do much to practically alleviate castration pain until injectable meloxicam was approved for use in Canadian cattle a few years ago. This was followed by even more user-friendly anti-inflammatory drugs, including pour-on banamine and an oral meloxicam developed by a Canadian company (Solvet).
At the same time, industry-funded research demonstrated that meloxicam reduced surgical or castration pain in calves at weaning, spring processing and even shortly after birth (although weaning weights didn’t improve). This independent science supported the efforts of extension experts, veterinarians, industry groups (and, of course, the drug companies) to encourage the adoption of these products. Industry surveys then tracked how producers adopted them across the country over the years.
What We’ve Learned
The 2018 Adoption Rates Report found that the adoption of pain control for castration increased from 4% of Western Canadian producers in 2013 to 28% in 2017. Adoption had reached similar levels in Ontario (26%) but has been somewhat slower in Atlantic Canada (10%).
How We’ve Used It
We have used this example to demonstrate to government funders that Canadian beef producers are clearly willing to modify long-standing traditions and adopt new practices that are supported by science.
Understanding how adoption of pain control varies among regions helps us to understand where adoption is taking hold, and increased producer communication may be helpful.
Seeing how readily Canadian cow-calf producers are adopting pain control for castration is also a good message that supports consumer confidence – even with tight economic margins, cow-calf producers have been willing to spend money to help their calves feel better – even without any obvious economic or weaning weight benefits.
So What Does This Mean…To You?
Solvet, the Canadian company that developed oral meloxicam, has now developed a castration band impregnated with a slow-release anesthetic to help alleviate both acute and chronic pain. Lidoband is already approved for use in the US and continues to wind its way through Canada’s regulatory process. If you’re interested, ask your veterinarian.
Bottom Line: When research generates a product or practice that fills a real need, producers will adopt it. Tracking producer adoption helps us prioritize and focus our extension efforts better. But tracking adoption also brings indirect benefits. When we can demonstrate that producer-funded research leads to adoption, government funders have more confidence that our projects are also a good investment of their taxpayer dollars. This helps us fund more research and gets you more bang for your Check-Off buck. And demonstrating that “when producers can do better, they will do better” supports consumer confidence.
The Canadian Cow-Calf Survey is open until the end of March. Thanks to everyone who has already completed it. If you haven’t participated yet, please take a few minutes to do so. It will help us refine our research and producer extension efforts so that we can help you and our industry more effectively. You can find it at www.BeefResearch.ca/survey.
Read some of the recent comments about the survey on X (Twitter):
The Beef Cattle Research Council is a not-for-profit industry organization funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.BeefResearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Calf 911 - How To Evaluate Newborn Calves Using the Calf VIGOR Scoring System ▶️🎙️
Ideally, after a calf is born, things go well, and the cow and newborn calf thrive. However, it is important for producers to know how to assess calves for subtle signs of distress or trauma that can occur due to a difficult calving.
Good vigor is a vital characteristic. A vigorous newborn calf has the best chance to remain healthy and productive within the herd.
The calf VIGOR scoring system is a standardized exam that was developed to help producers evaluate newborn calves and determine whether early intervention measures are necessary.
In the following video, Christine Murray-Kerr, PhD, from the University of Guelph walks producers through each step of the exam in the following video.
https://youtu.be/jnM553DHF5o
VIGOR is an Acronym for the Five Objective Measurements of Calf Vitality:
V – Visual Appearance: Yellow meconium staining on a calf as well as swelling in the head and face can indicate a prolonged birth. (0:50)
I – Initiation of Movement: The ability of a calf to get up and move will predict its ability to mother up and receive adequate colostrum. (1:27)
G – General Responsiveness: Reflexes such as suckling, head shake, tongue withdrawal and eye reflex reflect a calf’s vigor. (1:50)
O – Oxygenation: The mucous membrane or gum color is a good indication of how a calf is receiving and using oxygen. (2:35)
R – Respiratory and Heart Rates: Both the heart and lung performance can be easily assessed by counting the heartbeat and the breaths taken in 15 seconds, and then multiplying by 4. (3:00)
close monitoring for any other conditions common to newborns.
Knowing the VIGOR score of each new calf will help to determine if, and what, early intervention strategies should be used to give the calf the best chance of survival and good productivity through to weaning.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Calf 911 – How to Spot Respiratory Acidosis in a Newborn Calf ▶️🎙️
Most beef producers know the frustration that accompanies dealing with the dreaded “dummy calf.” These calves will not suckle, won’t sit up or stand and stare blankly with what seems to be a lack of will and intelligence to survive despite your best efforts. This lack of coordinated movement is often due to respiratory acidosis.
In the following video, Dr. Gabriel Jantzi of Metzger Veterinary Services explains the mechanisms that are involved in causing this type of acidosis, how to prevent it and steps to take when it does occur.
https://youtu.be/rJl0nuyqrGI
What Causes Respiratory Acidosis?
The normal respiration process
When a calf is in utero, the placenta is attached to both the mother and the calf. This link allows the mother to pass oxygen to the fetus and take away carbon dioxide, which is the waste product of breathing. Once the second stage of labor is initiated, the calf begins its journey to the outside world. During this period, the calf’s respiration is neither supported by the dam, nor able to breathe on its own. At this point, the calf is still processing the oxygen it had in its system, creating carbon dioxide, but it lacks a way of expelling it from its body. This carbon dioxide builds up in the blood, making it acidic.
When the birthing process proceeds as it should, this momentary respiratory acidosis can act as a trigger to cause the calf to gasp for air after delivery. This initiation of breathing allows for the built-up carbon dioxide to be exhaled, and the body can correct the acidosis via normal respiration.
complications in newborn calves
The problem occurs when the normal birthing process gets delayed. In this instance the calf is in a prolonged stage of being unable to clear the carbon dioxide from its body. This continues to create a state of acidosis, and the result is a “dummy calf”.
What are the symptoms of respiratory acidosis?
A calf known to have experienced delayed calving and that scores low on the calf VIGOR scoring system, is likely to suffer from respiratory acidosis. Symptoms of an acidotic calf can include:
Low VIGOR score
Poor suckle reflex
“Dummy calf” appearance or stupor
Weakness
Lack of coordination and or staggering
Coma
How do you treat respiratory acidosis?
The best treatment for respiratory acidosis is prevention. Good management practices help prevent calving difficulties and are key to minimizing the number of calves born with this challenging condition.
When calving difficulties do arise, early intervention is critical to ensure the calf initiates normal breathing as soon as possible. Proper resuscitation techniques are enough to prompt spontaneous respiration in those calves that are capable. However, for calves requiring more help, the use of a respiration aid such as an ambubag or mask respirator is necessary.
Once acidosis is established in the blood stream, electrolytes are needed to help correct blood pH levels. However, oral electrolytes provided using a stomach tube are not able to work quickly enough. A veterinarian will need to be contacted for advice on administering intravenous electrolytes as soon as possible.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
When Do I Turn Out My Cows? Managing Spring Pastures During and After Drought 🎙️
Beef producers will soon be making grazing plans for turning their herds out to spring pastures. While drought planning should be a routine part of the development of short- and long-term grazing plans, many beef cattle herds have withstood successive years of drought. This has prompted producers to hone in on their management skills to make the best use of their pasture forage and carefully maintain carryover to prevent prolonged damage. The question of ‘when can I turn my cows out?’ is an important one, especially for those with dwindling hays stacks or for producers purchasing feed.
Dr. Edward Bork is a Professor of Rangeland Management in the faculty of Agricultural, Life, and Environmental Sciences at the University of Alberta. He says that, aside from spring rainfall, how your pastures looked when you brought cattle in last fall may be the best indicator of how they will perform in spring. “The better condition the pasture was in October, the faster it will recover,” Bork explains.
Reduce the long-term impact of drought
With high winter feed costs, it may be tempting for producers to place cattle in pastures sooner than they normally would, but Bork cautions to be aware of potential long-term consequences. He points out that when we stress forages, we not only affect the above-ground growth but the below-ground root system as well.
“Deep roots require the most energy to maintain so they are the first to go,” says Bork, which means that when those roots are not maintained, the plant can lose its ability to draw from deep soil moisture reserves. Those deep roots store energy to keep the plant active during a drought and are also important for long-term survival. Native and tame plants have different root systems. In some cases, native plants appear to bounce back from drought quicker, because as long as they are healthy, they have much deeper roots than many tame species, Bork explains.
As enticing as it may be to turn cattle out early, or in some cases even just at a “normal” time, producers should consider holding off if their pastures have been stressed recently. “By managing pastures cautiously in the short term, we can prevent having to deal with drought-related issues for the next 10 years,” says Bork. Avoiding long-term damage to plant health and root systems will help prevent erosion and even reduce a pasture’s risk for weed encroachment.
Bork shares some tips for knowing when to turn cattle out, and how to make decisions that will support and maintain the long-term productivity of your pastures:
Know your carrying capacity: Be realistic with the amount of forage you have and develop your grazing plan accordingly. Use regional range health guidelines or the BCRC’s Carrying Capacity Calculator to estimate the amount of forage available and how many animals a pasture can support.
Wait until the three-leaf stage: Using plant height is not a good way to determine readiness to graze as plants can vary greatly by height, especially in the early stages. Instead wait until plants have three leaves to start grazing. This gives the plant time to build the reserves it needs for long-term survival. A common grazing rule of thumb is that for every one day you wait to graze in the spring you save two days in the fall.
Match your grazing plan to your pasture type: If possible, graze tame pastures prior to native pastures. Tame pastures are generally more grazing tolerant, and may be quicker to green up in spring, providing valuable early grazing. In contrast, native grasslands often take longer to reach peak production and therefore should be deferred longer if that is an option.
Pay attention to litter: Litter is the standing or fallen dead plant residue left remaining in a pasture. Bork points out that litter serves multiple purposes on prairie landscapes by conserving rain and snow melt but can also be part of the forage reserve. Pastures with abundant litter will require less recovery and can be accessed earlier in the season than those where there is little or no litter remaining. Grasslands without litter may produce 25-60% less forage than grasslands with adequate litter, says Bork. Pastures with reduced litter lose moisture through evaporation and runoff and are at a higher risk of sun and wind exposure.
Look backward: how was your forage managed in the previous year? If certain pastures were left in poor condition last fall, plan to use those in the following grazing season to allow ample time for rest and recovery.
Use rainfall rather than snow as your indicator of moisture recharge: Although looking at the plants and pastures should be your first indicator for forage growth potential, many beef producers may look to soil moisture levels to help determine pasture turnout. Bork points out that while snow can contribute to moisture recharge, this is not a certainty and may have a limited effect on forage recovery due to its tendency to evaporate (with chinooks, for example), or run off if soils are frozen. “Up to seventy percent of our precipitation on the prairies comes from rainfall in the growing season as opposed to snow, meaning that each year our forage growth is closely tied to the occurrence of May and June rainfall.” Bork is quick to note that when soil moisture is severely depleted by drought the prior year, spring growth will be even more dependent on timely rainfall.
Be ready to adapt: Recognize that grazing plans made in early spring are a moving target and will need to be adjusted based on rainfall, heat, and other environmental factors. Monitor pastures throughout the grazing season and consider what potential back-up plans might need to be implemented to ensure pastures are managed for drought resilience.
“If the pasture isn’t ready, what do I do?”
If producers are faced with drought conditions again, pastures will benefit from extended recovery time. It might be necessary to implement some early steps to prevent long-term damage to pastures.
Consider alternative feeds: Are there alternative feeds or byproducts such as soybean hulls, beet pulp, pellets, screenings, or other feed sources that can be used to extend the winter-feeding season or as supplements on pasture? Read this article on utilizing byproducts for more information.
Annual forages may fill the gap: Annual forages can be grazed four to six weeks after seeding and can often be stocked heavily. This strategy may help to alleviate pressure on grasslands, thereby allowing them to reach their peak growth potential which can help get your grazing plan back on track.
Determine if destocking is necessary: Making the decision to cull is never an easy one but it can help to reduce reliance on stressed pastures and aid in faster recovery. This article shares tips for making decisions on which cattle to cull.
Shorten the breeding season: By shortening your breeding season and pulling bulls sooner you are selecting for cattle that rebreed earlier, tightening up your calving season, and may be able to take advantage of higher grasser market prices for open heifers. This can help with culling decisions. This recent webinar shares additional information on shortening the breeding season for heifers.
Managing grasslands through drought is not an easy task, but having a plan going in, monitoring pastures and being willing to adapt as the weather changes can prevent pasture decline. Facing pasture productivity challenges head-on can help producers be better poised for recovery and reap the rewards when moisture is abundant.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Considerations When Using Alternative Feeds - Have You Done Your Homework? 🎙️
Alternative or non-conventional feeds, such as grain screenings, cull potatoes or distillers’ grains, can be an economical means for beef cattle producers to supplement forage and grain inventories while continuing to meet animal nutritional requirements. However, due to variability in the supply, nutrient composition and quality of these feed ingredients, there can be pitfalls if not properly managed. Below are several key areas that producers can focus on when deciding if alternative feeds are a good fit for their farm.
Match feed composition to beef cattle groups
Two of the main components to creating a balanced ration for beef cattle is knowing the nutritional composition of the feedstuffs being used and their suitability for the type or group of cattle being fed. Ration-balancing tools, such as CowBytes, allow producers to input feed analysis results and ingredient costs to calculate appropriate rations that safely use alternative feeds and reduce the risk of digestive upsets.
Screenings from cereals, pulses or canola, can be cost-effective sources of protein and energy in the diet for mature cattle. However, inconsistency between loads and the potential for toxins requires feed testing to determine the true nutritional value. In comparison, soyhulls or beet pulp, which are byproducts of processing, typically contain a consistent amount of energy due to having a high level of digestible fiber. This makes them an excellent feed for most classes of cattle.
Feeds, such as straw and oat hulls, have a poor nutritional composition, but can be utilized as fibre sources to partially substitute forage in rations for mature cows in early and mid-gestation. It is recommended to restrict the use of these feeds in the diet of bred heifers, a group that requires a higher plane of nutrition to meet their own growth and development needs, along with the rising demands of pregnancy. Feeding high levels of straw also increases the risk of impaction.
Barley with high-moisture heated durum. Photo credit: T. Carter
If feeding low- to medium-quality forage-based diets or grazing crop residues, additional protein supplementation is often necessary. Byproducts such as canola meal, soybean meal or dried distillers’ grains (DDG) are high-quality protein feeds that can be easily fed in multiple feeding scenarios and to all classes of cattle. Supplementing cows that reach peak lactation in early spring can provide the added energy and protein needed to support milk production before pasture turnout.
There can be an increased risk of toxins with some alternative feeds due to the concentration of nutrients during processing or the presence of certain conditions at harvest and storage. For example, heated or sprouted grains have an elevated risk of moulds and mycotoxins, while cereal screenings increase the danger of ergot toxicity. These contaminants can lead to reduced production performance, fertility issues and abortions in cattle. It is recommended to avoid feeding to bred heifers, pregnant cows or cow-calf pairs. Feed testing is necessary for any suspect feeds.
Think about handling and storage
Consider storage and feeding requirements before purchasing alternative feeds. Having the proper facilities and feeding infrastructure will make incorporating these feeds easier.
Handling can be a challenge when working with high-moisture feeds such as cull potatoes or fruit and vegetable waste. These types of products can freeze in cold weather, making consumption by cattle difficult. For example, whole, frozen cull potatoes present a choking hazard when fed. To reduce this risk, the potatoes can be chopped using a tub grinder or crushed with equipment such as tractors. However, it is important to keep in mind that once processed, storage time is greatly reduced.
Lentil screenings. Photo credit: T. Carter.
In addition, high-moisture products tend to ferment rapidly, especially when temperatures warm up. This creates potential spoilage issues, so it is recommended to feed quickly unless ensiled.
Feeds, such as chaff, oat hulls or screenings, can be bulky to transport and store. Covered commodity sheds can help reduce feed losses when compared to outside storage. The storage facilities used should be functional and well-maintained. These feeds are also dusty and ideally fed as part of a total mixed ration (TMR) with a wet ingredient or water included in the mix.
When thinking of on-farm ration preparation and feed delivery, consider the mixing characteristics of the novel feed, such as particle size, shape and density. Feeds with a fine particle size should be combined with other ingredients in a TMR to allow for the greatest utilization of the product. In contrast, larger particle feeds can be either fed on their own or mixed with other ingredients as part of a balanced ration.
What about costs – do they add up?
It is key to compare feeds on an equal nutrient basis and not simply on purchase price. This allows for a direct comparison between feeds. Consider the scenarios below (nutrient values expressed on a dry matter (DM) basis):
Two protein sources are available: source 1 contains 30% protein and costs $350/tonne, while source 2 costs $375/tonne and contains 38% protein. The cost per unit of protein for source 1 is $1.17/kg. In comparison, the cost per unit of protein is $0.99/kg for source 2. Therefore, although protein source 1 is purchased at a lower price, it will end up costing more to feed the same amount of protein per head per day when compared to source 2.
Assume corn grain is priced at $248/tonne and contains 88% total digestible nutrients (TDN). The cost per unit of energy is $0.28/kg. If grain screening pellets are available as an alternative energy source, and they contain 70% TDN, the breakeven price to pay for these pellets would be $195/tonne. It is important to remember that some screening pellets might be fortified with vitamins and minerals which must be considered when doing comparisons.
The BCRC’s interactive calculator for Evaluating the Economic Value of Feeds can help producers determine the value of feeds they are considering for purchase compared to the value of standard feeds. Keep in mind that it is important to use “dry matter” values rather than “as fed” when running cost comparisons.
Considerations when calculating the cost of transportation should include the distance hauled and the physical nature of the product itself. As an example, culled potatoes, culled onions or other fruit and vegetable wastes can have moisture contents ranging from 70-90%. This means that 1 tonne of these feeds at a dry matter of 25% would contain 750 kg of water! This greatly increases the transportation costs, especially over long distances. In addition, due to the high-moisture content, bedding costs may increase along with a higher risk of digestive upsets and buildup of manure tags.
Carefully manage the inclusion of alternative feeds
Local alternative feeds can be effective and economical additions to beef cattle rations. However, careful management is required to avoid potential problems and to ensure the nutritional requirements of the type of cattle being fed are met.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
An Ounce of Prevention 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the February 2024 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on the www.BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Vaccines are an important tool to help minimize pre-weaning calf illness and death early in life, reduce the risk of reproductive failure in the breeding herd and help improve colostrum’s ability to protect next year’s calf crop when it hits the ground.
Vaccine technology, programs and practices are constantly evolving. All the options can be confusing, but more options can also make it easier to customize and combine those options in a way that optimally protect your herd against the diseases that are most important to you.
Cow-calf producers from BC (6), Alberta (38), Saskatchewan (27), Manitoba (18), Ontario (20), New Brunswick (2) and Nova Scotia (2) were surveyed about which vaccines they used and when they were using them in different groups of cattle.
What They Learned
Vaccination rates have improved nationwide in recent years.
Breeding herd: Overall, nearly all producers gave cows (97%), replacement heifers (95%) and bulls (83%) at least one vaccination in 2020. 92% of producers vaccinated their cows and replacement heifers against IBR, BRSV, PI3 and BVD. These “core vaccines” help protect against viruses that contribute to reproductive failure and pneumonia. Vaccination against clostridial diseases (e.g., blackleg) was less common (~50% of herds), possibly because some producers elect to use those vaccines every other year. Vaccination rates were still lower for bulls; sometimes they’re overlooked, sometimes they’re simply less pleasant to deal with. Vaccination against footrot was most common in bulls (31% of herds), presumably because sore bulls on pasture are even less pleasant to deal with.
Nursing calves: Nearly all (99%) producers gave calves at least one vaccine in 2020. Core viral vaccines against IBR, BRSV and PI3 (all 92%) and BVD (78%) were used most frequently. Calves were also often vaccinated against clostridial diseases (87%). Vaccination against BRD bacteria (pasture pneumonia) was also relatively common (e.g., 56% of herds vaccinated against Mannheimia).
But booster vaccinations were given less often (e.g., 47% for IBR, BRSV and PI3, 30% for BVD, 26% for clostridial diseases and 4 to 27% for BRD bacteria). The booster shot recommended by the label is essential to get the most protection the vaccine can provide. Neglecting boosters is probably about logistics – producers give vaccines when the facilities, time and labor are all available at the same time.
Other lessons: Intranasal vaccines are becoming more popular, especially for newborn calves. Injectable vaccines are largely ineffective until the antibodies from the mother’s colostrum have waned, so they are not usually given before calves are a few months old. Intransal vaccines do not have this limitation – they provide protection even in newborn calves. But there are several things to be aware of. Intranasal vaccines provide protection earlier in life, but they may not last as long, so boosting with an injectable vaccine a few months later during spring processing is particularly important. Secondly, current intranasal vaccines cover three of the core viruses (IBR, BRSV and PI3) but not BVD. That means that the calf still needs an injectable BVD vaccination during spring processing (when the IBR, BRSV and PI3 are being boosted). Research to identify the optimal combinations and timings of various intranasal (“mucosal”) and injectable (“systemic”) vaccines for optimal immune protection is underway.
Vaccines against clostridial diseases like blackleg were used much more widely in Western than in Eastern Canada, even though these bacteria are a threat across the country. Western producers were also more likely to vaccinate their calves against BRD bacteria than Eastern producers. BRD (pneumonia) is not just a feedlot disease; it’s also the most common reason for antibiotic treatment of calves before weaning. Vaccinating all the calves at spring processing will help reduce the number of calves you need to chase, catch, tackle, stress and treat on summer pasture.
So What Does This Mean… To You?
Work with your veterinarian to make sure that your vaccination program includes all the core vaccines and other important diseases facing your herd (or neighborhood) and production system. They can look at the vaccines you’ve used recently and point out new alternatives that may be a better fit for your needs (e.g., killed vs. modified live). Make sure they understand your entire operation so that the vaccination and booster schedule fits with fieldwork, pasture turnout dates, community pastures, pregnancy checking, etc
Bottom Line: Vaccines can help your cattle resist common diseases, but they’re not a magic bullet. Vaccines won’t overcome poor management. Cattle can’t take full of advantage of the protection vaccines can offer if nutrition (e.g., protein, energy, vitamins, minerals) is lacking or disease pressures are too high (e.g. excessive mud, manure or overcrowding).
Speaking of surveys; we’d really appreciate it if you could take some time to participate in the Canadian Cow-Calf Survey. This survey will help the BCRC refine our research priorities and producer extension efforts. You can find it at BeefResearch.ca/survey.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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. Learn more about the BCRC at www.beefresearch.ca.
The sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Calm, Cool and Collected – Prepare for a Smooth and Healthy Calving Season 🎙️
As calving season gets underway for Canadian beef cattle producers, an abundance of sleepless nights can be expected to come with it. Cows will be calving around the clock, leaving little leeway if anything goes wrong. Careful planning becomes important, not only to help calves hit the ground healthy but also in benefiting producers, both physically and mentally, when dealing with the stresses of the calving season.
Cynthia Beck, an active cattle rancher, provisionally registered psychologist in Saskatchewan and volunteer director for Sask Ag Matters Mental Health Network, says taking the time to prepare prior to the busy season is well worth it. “For many producers, myself included, we run into a tough time at calving, and I think most of us attribute the difficulty to stress and exhaustion. Yet not many producers know there are things we can do to proactively help ourselves get through calving while maintaining both our physical and our mental health,” she explains.
Take the Time to Prepare
Beck, along with her husband, manages a 400-head cowherd in southern Saskatchewan. Taking the time to be prepared can decrease a lot of the stress and workload of this busy season, she says. It can be as simple as taking 10-15 minutes to locate the necessary accessories needed to assist with a difficult calving, disinfecting this equipment and storing it in a central location that everyone is aware of. Test tools such as flashlights and make sure the calf puller is working correctly.
Preparing calving sites ahead of time reduces the workload when calving starts and benefits by helping maintain cow and calf health. Given that calving facilities have not been in use over the past 9-10 months, it is recommended to check all equipment and fix any items that need repair. Calving facilities should be clean and dry with sufficient lighting.
Adequate wind protection should be provided along with fresh bedding, as wet, muddy conditions create a stressful environment for both the cow and calf. Likewise, pathogens, such as those responsible for scours, can accumulate in these types of conditions. Have enough bedding brought in or put up and stored in an easily accessible location. The availability of feed and bedding has been a challenge in recent years for producers in some parts of the country due to extreme weather conditions or drought. However, clean, dry bedding is an important aspect of biosecurity during calving.
For producers calving in the winter months, it is essential to have a plan in place for warming calves during cold weather. Cold, wet conditions can quickly lead to hypothermia. Therefore, having the equipment and tools on hand to deal with this type of situation can quickly minimize calf losses.
Calves are born with virtually no immunity of their own which means that they must receive their initial immunity from antibody-rich colostrum. Therefore, a newborn calf must receive adequate colostrum within the first 12 hours of life. Having necessary supplies, such as colostrum supplements and/or replacements, on hand, Beck says, will help alleviate some stress as many producers have long distances to travel to purchase these items.
Support the #1 Farm Asset
Self-maintenance may not be at the forefront of many producers’ minds as they prepare for, and navigate their way through, calving season. However, Beck advises producers that they “are the number one asset on the farm and without them, the machinery doesn’t run and the cows don’t feed themselves.”
“Producers are the number one asset on the farm and without them, the machinery doesn’t run and the cows don’t feed themselves.”
— Cynthia Beck, director for Sask Ag Matters Mental Health Network
Her top three self-maintenance tips for producers to protect their physical, emotional and mental well-being during calving are:
Drink plenty of water.
Fuel your body with nutritious food.
Sleep when you can.
“These basic self-maintenance actions will help producers with so many different things during the stress of calving,” says Beck. For example, she points out that when individuals are properly hydrated, they will automatically have clearer thinking, better emotional regulation and improved decision-making skills. The same can be said for sleep as a lack of sleep is linked to increased risk-taking behaviours and lower safety behaviours along with reduced productivity, she explains.
Meal planning is another method of helping to reduce stress and anxiety. When people feel overwhelmed, the ability to make healthy choices can be compromised. This becomes even more important when producers run an operation by themselves. “In this situation, not only are they responsible for feeding the herd, doing herd health, herd maintenance and calving, but they are also responsible for feeding themselves,” says Beck. She suggests that these producers take the time to purchase food or prepare balanced meals in advance that are ready to eat during the calving season.
Beck points out that communication is another key aspect of elevating producers’ well-being, particularly if they are working with others. She says it is important to remember there are other people that can help. Being able to speak up and explain areas where you are struggling and need a hand brings benefits for multiple areas of a cattle operation.
Be Proactive, but Flexible
Being proactive is key. However, Beck says it is important to realize you can’t plan for everything. And when things do not go as planned, this can create another level of stress for producers. Making the appropriate preparations ahead of time can help minimize calf losses and reduce the stresses for those involved in this busy season.
Sometimes help isn’t just needed for your herd. When the stress of calving season becomes overwhelming, please reach out to your community or professionals for mental health support. The Do More Agriculture Foundation website has many great resources, call line numbers, and ag support groups.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Say "Beef" - We're Taking a Snapshot! 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the January 2024 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
On average, $0.67 of your $2.50 Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off came to the BCRC in 2022/23. Most of these dollars support research projects and programs. But most of the BCRC staff hours are spent turning research results into producer resources. That involves collecting production information from across Canada, identifying opportunities (and barriers) to better profitability, mobilizing existing knowledge to help producers exploit those opportunities and supporting new research to tackle the barriers.
Producer surveys help us focus these efforts appropriately. In the past, various provincial governments, consultants, university researchers and regional producer groups designed their own unique production surveys. The BCRC and Canfax Research Services worked with these groups to knit the results of the different surveys together into a single Adoption Rates Report. This report provided a snapshot of a wide range of production practices that have been adopted by cow-calf operators in different parts of the country. This time, we worked with these groups to develop a single, shorter survey for all parts of the country. The Canadian Cow-Calf Survey is open now and we need your participation to get the most value out of it.
Here are two examples of how past Canadian Cow-Calf Production Surveys have helped informed our extension efforts.
The last survey found that 6.8% of heifers (5.2% of cows) in Western Canada and 7.5% of heifers (8.3% of cows) in Eastern Canada lost their calves before weaning. Half of those deaths happened during the first 24 hours after birth. The odds are even worse if you’re calving now. BCRC-funded research found that January- and February-born calves are more likely to die before weaning than spring-born calves. In any event, using proper resuscitation and colostrum management practices are essential to help these calves through those critical first 24 hours of life.
Knowing this, the BCRC worked with veterinarians, producers and extension experts (Manitoba Beef and Forage Initiatives) to develop simple, practical information resources to help producers increase the odds of calf survival. You’ll find them at BeefResearch.ca/calf911.
Here’s a related example. January- and February-born calves are also at least twice as likely to require calving assistance than spring-born calves. Past surveys suggest that calving difficulty may be on the rise, from 16% of heifers and 4% of cows (2014) to 37% of heifers (21% of cows) in 2017. Calving difficulty has a genetic component, which is why calving ease should be one of the major considerations in bull buying decisions. But nutrition plays a big role, too. The risk of calving difficulty is higher when cows are thin or over-fat at calving. Not only are thin cows more likely to have difficulty at calving, they’ll take longer to recover from calving, be slower to return to estrus, rebreed later (or not rebreed at all) and wean a lighter calf next fall (BeefResearch.ca/bodyconditionscoring). Optimizing nutrition is key to avoiding these challenges.
Nice green feed likely has better digestibility and vitamin A content than weathered feed. But color won’t tell you about mineral, protein or energy content. If old, dry, brown feed or straw is all you’ve got on hand, a feed test gives you an informed starting point to identify what nutrients need supplementing. From there you can start to identify what the most cost-effective supplements are. Winter feed is expensive, so it’s particularly important to know what you’re buying (or want to be buying).
Previous cow-calf production surveys found that fewer than half of producers tested their feed regularly or even occasionally. So, the BCRC worked with other extension experts to develop feed testing resources – how to collect a sample, where to send it and how to interpret the results. These tools can also help producers assess whether a particular batch of hay, greenfeed or other feed meets the needs of different types of cattle (e.g., backgrounders, developing heifers, mature cows) at different stages of production (post-weaning, early-, mid- or late- pregnancy, early lactation, etc.), help assess the cost-effectiveness of potential supplements and know when to call expert help (visit BeefResearch.ca/feedtesting). CowBytes ration balancing software is also being sold again through BeefResearch.ca/cowbytes.
So what does this mean… to you? We’re not encouraging a return to yesteryear’s high-input cow-calf production or early calving seasons! Producers choose different production systems for different reasons. Excessive focus on either maximizing productivity or minimizing inputs can both sacrifice profitability. We’re trying to help producers find profit opportunities regardless of the production system they’ve adopted. Sometimes a little help during calving season can turn a potential death loss into revenue at weaning. And ensuring your cows have the groceries they need to calve, produce colostrum, raise a strong calf, rebreed early and keep doing it year after year helps avoid early culling of females before they have a chance to pay for themselves. It costs a lot to get a heifer and cow pregnant and maintained through the winter. If recent feed and calf prices are any gauge, it’s worth getting as many of your cows bred and calves weaned as you can. We hope these simple, free resources help.
Bottom Line: Your participation in this survey will help us design better information and tools to help your operation. Surveys are only as good as the honesty and volume of answers we get. The more complete surveys we get, the better able we’ll be to generate better information for Canada’s cow-calf producers. Find it at BeefResearch.ca/survey.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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 sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
🎙️New Podcast for Beef Cattle Producers
The BCRC launched a podcast! The Canadian Beef Cattle Podcast will feature the most popular content from BeefResearch.ca in a new audio format.
Each week you’ll hear valuable information on topics ranging from animal health and productivity to feed and forage management, and much more.
Subscribe on your favourite podcast streaming platforms or find weekly episodes on the BCRC podcasts page.
Like what you hear? Rating and reviewing podcasts helps them reach more listeners.
Listen, Rate and Follow!
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Fast Action at the Watering Hole🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the December 2023 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
Antibiotic resistance threatens the effective prevention and treatment of disease in both humans and animals. When microbes are exposed to an antibiotic, those that are susceptible to that antibiotic die out. Those that are resistant to it survive, thrive, reproduce, pass on their resistance genes on to their descendants and become more common. If those surviving bacteria cause disease, then it’s bad news for health, because that antibiotic won’t be as effective for treating that disease anymore. But it turns out that even “bystander” bacteria may play a role in antibiotic resistance.
Both antibiotics and antibiotic resistance are completely natural. Microbes produce antibiotics as defensive and offensive weapons to help them compete for space and resources in their environment. In fact, most modern antibiotics were derived from drugs that were originally isolated from different species of soil bacteria. So, it’s not surprising that antibiotic resistance is also found in the environment – microbes naturally evolve resistance to defend themselves against the antibiotics that other microbes produce. Researchers find antibiotic resistant bacteria in glaciers and other locations that have never seen modern humans or modern antibiotics. It’s a subterranean arms race.
In an arms race, shadowy arms dealers connect people with weapons to people who want weapons. Normally harmless bacteria found in water may be the arms dealers in the feedlot’s antibiotic resistance arms race. Tony Ruzzini and colleagues recently demonstrated this (Insight into antimicrobial resistance at a new beef cattle feedlot in western Canada).
What They Did
The research team collected water samples from a new dugout and new water bowls in eight empty pens at a brand-new feedlot that opened in the fall of 2021. Nineteen different groups of bacteria from those water samples were tested for resistance to the different antibiotics used in the feedlot. More water samples were collected and tested weekly over eight weeks, as feeder cattle filled the pens. On arrival, calves deemed to be at a higher risk for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) were given Draxxin, lower risk calves were given oxytetracycline, and the feed contained Tylan to control liver abscesses. Cattle that developed clinical signs of BRD were treated with Excede, Florkem or Forcyl according to the health protocol the feedlot and their veterinary consultant had developed. Antibiotic resistance genes from bacteria in the water samples were compared to antibiotic resistance genes in BRD bacteria collected in earlier studies (Mannheimia hemolytica, Histophilus somni, and Pasteurella multocida).
What They Learned
Water samples collected before the cattle arrived: bacteria resistant to Florkem and Draxxin were found in the dugout and some of the water bowls, even before cattle began to enter the feedlot. The environment was a natural reservoir for these antibiotic resistant bacteria, albeit at low levels.
Water samples after the cattle arrived: Resistance to each antibiotic was found in some water bowl samples as early as the first week cattle began arriving. Water bowls in all pens contained bacteria resistant to each antibiotic by the end of the eighth week, likely from contact with the cattle treated with antibiotics on arrival.
Antibiotic resistance in water bowls vs. BRD bacteria: Even though water bowls and the bovine respiratory tract are very, very different environments, there was considerable overlap between the antibiotic resistance genes (and multidrug resistance patterns) found in water bowls and BRD bacteria. That’s what makes these results important. Bacteria are not like mammals. Mammals can only spread genes by mating with others of their kind, and genetic change takes place slowly, over generations. Bacteria can leak whole sets of genes into the environment and absorb sets of genes leaked by other bacteria. This can occur even between very distantly related species of bacteria. Entirely different species of bacteria can also mate and share sets of antibiotic resistance genes. These sets of genes often have functions related to antibiotic resistance, some of which would occur naturally, even in the absence of antibiotic use. This means that bacteria from the water bowl may spread antibiotic resistance genes to BRD bacteria from the respiratory tract, and vice versa. This would be like penning a pig and a cow together overnight, only to find a pig with horns and a cow with a curly tail the next morning.
More research would be needed to determine whether cleaning water bowls regularly might help manage the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the feedlot. Water bowls may also become a convenient place to monitor antibiotic resistance (especially compared to deep nasopharyngeal swabs). For example, the researchers reported an abundance of Moraxella bacteria in water bowls. Moraxella species make up most of the bacteria living in the nose of beef cattle.
So, What Does This Mean… to You?
Antibiotic resistance has been around ever since bacteria first appeared and will never go away. That’s why responsible antibiotic use is so important to ensure antibiotics remain effective. Your veterinarian (and doctor) can help.
Bottom line: BRD can spread among cattle when they congregate at the water bowl. But water bowls might also be a spot where antibiotic resistance spreads among bacteria and adjacent pens, and might present an opportunity to help manage antibiotic resistance.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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 sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Science Confirms the Beef Industry's Environmental Benefits 🎙️
Canadian beef producers continue to make significant progress in making their operations more environmentally sustainable thanks in part to research and extension efforts.
“We’ve done a lot of work to quantify how beef producers are reducing their environmental footprint,” Dr. Kim Ominski says, citing results showing lower greenhouse gas emissions, water use and ammonia emissions per kilogram of beef produced. Ominski is a professor in the University of Manitoba’s Animal Science Department and this year’s recipient of the Canadian Beef Industry Award for Outstanding Research and Innovation.
She says improvements have occurred in animal productivity (reproductive efficiency, weaning weight, carcass weight) and crop yields (barley grain, barley silage, corn grain and corn silage). Improving productivity allows more beef to be produced from fewer cattle, less feed, land and water, and reduces emissions per kilogram of beef.
In a study she and her colleagues published in 2015, they found that in 2011, Canadian beef production needed only 71 percent of the breeding herd and 76 percent of the land needed to produce the same amount of liveweight for slaughter as in 1981. At the same time, for each kilogram of beef, Canadian cattle producers have:
Ominski also says that the land producers need to raise their cattle is incredibly important in terms of carbon sequestration. Forages and grasslands used for grazing capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, carbon above the ground in plant growth and carbon below the ground in roots.
“These landscapes play a critical role in maintaining carbon stocks and biodiversity. Not only are they important for cattle but they also provide habitat for many plant and animal species including wildlife,” she says.
Ryan Beierbach
View from the ranch
Ryan Beierbach agrees.
“You look at things like wildlife – producers are more willing to provide habitat now, even if it costs them a bit,” says Beierbach. He, his wife Tania and his family run 750 cattle and own a ranch supply and tack store near Whitewood, Saskatchewan. Beierbach is the current chair of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef and past chair of the Beef Cattle Research Council.
Producer attitudes toward the environment are the biggest changes he has witnessed over the past quarter century in Canada’s beef industry.
Part of the reasoning is that producers are proud of the fact that they are the guardians of the environment, and another part is that governments have come on board with programs to help producers offset some of the financial costs.
There’s also the role of research and the fact that producers now have a better understanding of how grass grows and how to manage it.
“We understand more about soil and microbes and how the cattle interact with it, along with the land’s ability to sequester carbon,” he says, adding that this also improves production so ranchers can graze more cattle while managing to help the overall system become more resistant to drought.
He says ranchers have always wanted to leave the land better for the next generation, but now they are more aware of what is going on with the environment and how they can make it more resilient.
Click for the BCRC’s two-page PDF on beef’s place in a healthy environment.
He credits the Beef Cattle Research Council (BCRC) and particularly its more recent focus on extension – bringing practical research results and solid production advice to ranchers – for the improvements.
“Government largely got out of the extension business, and BCRC has had more money to spend in the last few years since the increase in the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off,” he says. “With that, we can do the research and provide the extension work – it’s made a big difference in getting producers to understand more about rotational grazing and things like water quality.”
On his own ranch, he has been using rotational grazing for 15 years – moving the cattle every two to four days in the spring and every three to five or six days in the fall. He has also installed solar troughs and water pipelines.
“Being with BCRC convinced me that I had to spend some money to improve the water quality and I get a return on that,” he says.
Before he put his pipeline in, cattle would have to walk a mile and a half for water through multiple fields which meant they were grazed more than they should be and for longer periods than they should. Using solar troughs near dugouts has meant the dugouts don’t dry out as much as they used to.
“Three summers ago, we had a long period of drought and most other dugouts were dry – and I barely got through the grazing season thanks to the solar water troughs,” he says.
Twenty-one years ago, when Beierbach bought his ranch, it was marginal farmland and he continuously grazed his cattle for the first five years. As a result of rotational grazing and other methods Beierbach has used since then, he has noticed that there are more willow trees – which provide good shelter for the cattle to get out of the wind, and habitat for birds and deer.
Getting the message out
Ominski points out that many by-products of the food processing sector – which might otherwise be sent to the landfill and create their own greenhouse gases – are used by the livestock industry to create high quality protein.
“We have the largest pea processing facility in the world here in Manitoba, and the co-products that come out of it have a perfect place in the feed market for ruminants, which can take these highly fibrous products and convert them to milk and meat,” she says.
Ominski is a strong advocate for providing consumers solid information about the environmental impacts of the beef industry and producers.
“What’s important is that beef production requires fewer resources – in terms of land and water, but it also means lower emissions per unit of meat produced,” she says.
Not only are sustainability metrics difficult to measure but they are also equally difficult to communicate to the general public. She sees the scientists’ role as generating science-based information and having conversations with consumers so that they can make food choices that are right for them.
“This information is also important for producers – it empowers them to show the changes that they’ve made and how they’re producing more food with fewer resources,” she says.
Research is also really important to generate solid science to inform government program and policy development, Ominski adds. Because of the complexity of the beef production system, researchers must work with producers to develop effective best management practices that are practical and cost-effective.
Charting the future
The Canadian beef industry has set ambitious environmental targets for 2030.
A number of organizations, including the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, the Canadian Cattle Association and the BCRC have developed a series of 10 industry-specific goals, including reducing greenhouse gas emission intensity by 33 percent and increasing carbon sequestration by 3.4 million tons per year. They’ve also set goals of maintaining the 35 million acres of grassland currently used by beef producers and maintaining and enhancing 68 percent of wildlife habitat capacity.
Getting there will require a collaborative effort – which Ominski emphasizes often.
“There’s no silver bullet – improvements are coming from many different places – selecting and managing animals for improved production and reproduction, improving the quality of forages, and changes in land management practices to preserve perennial forage land,” she says.
“To achieve those goals, we have to work together at many different levels to develop best management practices, as well as program and policies to ensure the environmental and economic sustainability of our food systems.”
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Genetic IQ: Defining Traits That Matter in Your Beef Herd and Tracking Data to Make Decisions 🎙️
In beef production, genetics play a critical role in management and profitability. However, knowing whether you’re on the right track can be challenging. Compared to other livestock species, beef cattle have a long gestation period. Those 283 days, plus the period from birth to weaning or beyond, can seem like a long time to find out if a particular genetic combination is a winner or a bust.
What tools and technologies exist that can help producers optimize their genetic selection? What traits are more economically relevant than others? How can genetic selection tools be useful for marketing?
Many purebred/seedstock producers use data collection along with DNA testing to generate expected progeny differences (EPDs) to help their customers make decisions. Commercial producers may take advantage of the benefits of cross-breeding, also known as heterosis, using two or more breeds. They may choose to keep track of which breed combinations work best to help them achieve their goals.
In order to use genetic data as a decision-making tool, you need to start with some form of on-farm record-keeping. The BCRC has a suite of free genetic record-keeping resources available for producers who are at a beginner (Level One), intermediate (Level Two) or advanced (Level Three) stage.
In the recent BCRC webinar, Keeping Production Data to Improve the Supply Chain, Betty-Jo Almond from AgSights says data has value in both a broad context and on an individual basis. “You may be operating on a herd level, but when you can identify those animals that do a good job, or those silently strong animals, or the ones that are not doing great for you, and cull those, you can see some pretty quick advancements in your profitability,” Almond says. Her company works with producers to analyze data and make on-farm production decisions.
“Genetic selection is impacted by a lot of different things and a lot of different traits are important to different producers,” explains Sandy Russell, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Beef Breeds Council (CBBC). The CBBC connects Canada’s purebred breeds and genetic industry around the world.
While commercial and purebred herds may gather and manage their own unique genetic data, most large-scale genetic information is collected and maintained by individual breed associations. Russell acknowledges that keeping this valuable information in silos has made using the data a challenge for commercial producers looking for broader information to make breeding or feeding decisions.
To address this, the CBBC embarked on an initiative called the Canadian Beef Improvement Network (CBIN) which will help standardize information across breeds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xysO0a7TY3o
Click above to watch this webinar in its entirety or jump to each panelist’s presentation:
(4:02) Bruce Niznik of Niznik Farms shares how he uses careful genetic selection to advance the marketing practices for his cow-calf and backgrounding operation near Brooks, Alberta.
(16:17) Betty-Jo Almond with AgSights explains how their company works with farmers to enhance data-based decision-making.
(28:56) Virgil Lowe with Granite Cattle Inc. near Nanton, Alberta, explains how they source, buy and feed cattle based on prior production data.
Betty-Jo Almond and her team at AgSights developed an across-breed selection tool as a pilot project for CBIN. “We’ve created a dashboard in collaboration with the breed associations so that we can start to pull in purebred information, but also commercial information, and connect the data and try to demonstrate the value of having a resource where you can find that superior genetics to incorporate into your breeding program,” says Almond.
“Part of the dashboard is providing some visuals so you know the strengths of the bulls you are reviewing,” says Almond, who adds that the project is evolving to include a stronger focus on the commercial component across all levels of beef production.
This is an example of average EPD comparisons for top sires compared to all sires. Image from www.agsights.com/cbindashboard/
Russell explains that having a unified approach to genetic advancement will help highlight information in a way that producers can use to inform their decision-making. “It’s not about identifying the perfect cow but about helping producers make decisions using sound data.”
Beef producer Marlin Leblanc says the concept of building a bi-directional pipeline of genetic information that goes up the chain and back down is the key.
Leblanc had a long, successful career as a purebred breeder with R Plus Simmentals and recently switched gears to run yearlings following his herd dispersal last winter. He has seen a lot of different aspects of the business and is co-vice chair of the CBBC and a proponent of CBIN and what it might mean for the industry.
“I bought feeder cattle for years too, and you had five to ten seconds to decide what that calf will yield when it hits 1,500 pounds and decide what you can pay for it,” Leblanc says. “Now if we can prove that those cattle are right, the whole system changes.”
Leblanc adds that cattle are getting marketed differently now, and tracking prior owners of feeder cattle is something many lots are already doing. “Sourcing cattle that yield, that feed from feed-efficient herds — feedlots like data too. We just need someone out there to make that connection to share that data.”
He believes the purebred industry has an important role to play and getting a seat at the same table as stakeholders at the other end of the supply chain is highly valuable. “The big players realize that genetics are important,” Leblanc explains. “This is an opportunity if they’re willing to share information, which will allow us to breed better cattle and help them get what they want.”
Finding out what might not be working also has value. “The thing we might have to realize is sometimes the cattle we believe are right, aren’t,” Leblanc says. “There’s always a risk with information but if you’re using a bull that doesn’t meet some of these criteria, you aren’t helping your commercial customer. . . . We’ve all used the wrong bull before and the best thing you can do is move on to something else.
“I think CBIN will move the needle,” he says. “When you start working with feedlots and packing plants, that’s real data. When you know what these cattle did, you can make them better and make the customer better.”
Sandy Russell says that through CBIN, breeders and associations will maintain control of their data. “For individual producers, if you want to share data, that’s your choice,” she says. “But this will make it easier for breeders to do so if they choose.
“Each individual commercial producer has a goal that is unique and evolves over time, and if we can inform those goals and help them achieve results, that is what this is all about.”
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Do Transport Rest Stops Put Calf Health at Risk? 🎙️
This article written by Dr. Reynold Bergen, BCRC Science Director, originally appeared in the October 2023 issue ofCanadian Cattlemenmagazine and is reprinted on BeefResearch.ca with permission of the publisher.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency revised the Transportation of Animals regulations a few years ago. Among other things, the revised regulations require longer and more frequent feed, water and rest stops during long-haul transport. Over the past few years, this column has summarized three research trials conducted by Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein’s team at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Lethbridge Research Station. Those results repeatedly demonstrated that rest stops during long-haul transport do not provide measurable benefits for recently weaned beef calves.
In fact, new data suggests that those rest stops may pose a risk to calves. Nasal samples were collected and tested for respiratory bacteria during the three trials. The first results from those analyses have just been published (“Auction market placement and a rest stop during transportation affect the respiratory bacterial microbiota of beef cattle”; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1192763).
What They Did
160 freshly-weaned (not preconditioned) crossbred steer calves from a single ranch were split into two groups of 80 calves. One group went to an auction mart overnight (with feed and water) and was put through the ring the next day before being trucked to the research feedlot. A second “ranch direct” group went directly to the research feedlot. Commercial truckers loaded the calves (at the auction mart or the ranch), hauled them for 36 hours and unloaded them. At this point, half of the auction mart and half of the ranch direct calves were immediately reloaded and hauled for another four hours to the research feedlot. The other half of each subgroup were rested for eight hours, then reloaded and hauled the last four hours to the research feedlot.
Deep nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 48 calves (12 from each of the four treatment groups) when they were unloaded at the research feedlot and one, three, six and 28 days after arrival. These samples were tested for the presence of bacteria that can have a protective effect on respiratory health (e.g., Lactobacillus), bacteria that can break down protective mucus and impair respiratory health (e.g., Streptococcus), and groups of bacteria that are directly involved in bovine respiratory disease (BRD; e.g., Histophilus, Mannheimia, Pasteurella and Mycoplasma).
What They Learned
Ranch direct vs. auction mart calves: The bacteria most often associated with BRD (e.g., Mycoplasma, Pasteurella, Histophilus and Mannheimia) were more common in the calves that had gone through the auction mart than in the calves that went directly from the ranch to the feedlot. That’s a bit surprising, given these research calves were not comingled with calves from other sources. At most, they shared a fenceline and waterbowl with other calves – sort of like a cattle rest facility.
Rested vs. unrested calves: Auction mart calves that were unloaded for an eight-hour feed, water and rest break carried fewer protective Lactobacillus than unrested auction mart calves each time they were sampled. Rested ranch direct calves carried less Lactobacillus than unrestedranch direct calves when they arrived at the feedlot and 28 days later.
Potentially adverse Streptococcus bacteria were much more common in rested auction mart calves than in unrested auction mart calves at four out of the five sampling points. Rested ranch direct calves also carried more Streptococcus than unrested ranch direct calves at every sampling time.
Rest stops often increased the abundance of the groups of bacteria associated with BRD. Rested auction mart calves carried more Mycoplasma than unrested auction mart calves at four of the five sampling time points. Rested ranch direct calves carried slightly fewer Mycoplasma than unrested ranch direct calves at all five time points.
Rested auction mart calves carried slightly fewer Pasteurella than unrested auction mart calves at all five time points, but rested ranch direct calves carried slightly more Pasteurella than unrested ranch direct calves at all five sampling times.
Rested auction mart calves carried more Histophilus than unrested auction mart calves on day 1, 3 and 6 after feedlot arrival. Rested ranch direct calves carried more Histophilus than unrested ranch direct calves on day 3 after feedlot arrival. Rested auction mart calves carried more Mannheimia than unrested auction mart calves the day after arrival, while rested ranch direct calves carried more Mannheimia than unrested ranch direct calves at all five measurement points.
So What Does This Mean…To You?
Although animal numbers and BRD treatment rates were too low (less than 6%) to detect significant differences between the auction and ranch-direct groups, the microbiology results suggest that a rest stop during long-distance transport may increase the risk of BRD in newly weaned beef calves. An eight-hour rest stop reduced the numbers of good (protective) bacteria and increased the numbers of bacteria that can compromise respiratory health and/or can cause BRD.
Bottom line: Canadian research had already shown that rest stops during long haul transport don’t benefit newly weaned beef calves. This new research suggests that rest stops may increase the risk of BRD and potentially the need for preventative or therapeutic antimicrobial use (increased treatment not seen in this study). We’ll bring you the results from the other two trials as they become available.
The Beef Cattle Research Council is funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off. The BCRC partners with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 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 sharing or reprinting of articles on BeefResearch.ca is typically welcome and encouraged, however this article requires permission of the original publisher.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Understanding the Five W's of Cattle Injections: Who, What, When, Where & Why 🎙️
Over the last two decades, great strides have been made in standardizing beef cattle injection techniques and methods. Today, there are animal injection best practices that have become widely known in the beef industry as “just the right thing to do.” These cattle injection techniques are recommended to help farmers produce safe beef for the consumer and maintain Canada’s high reputation for beef quality.
How to Inject a Beef Animal
Securely restrain the animal.
Use the appropriate size and length of needle.
Use the subcutaneous route whenever the product label allows.
Only inject 10 ml (cc) maximum into any one site, or as per label.
Change needles when bent or dull and after every 10-15 uses.
Never straighten or reuse a bent needle.
Leave a hand-width of space between injections.
Never inject in the armpit of the animal (i.e. branding, spring processing).
Source: Verified Beef Production Plus Producer Manual
Route of Administration for Beef Cattle Injections
When label recommendations are followed, a beef animal’s ability to absorb, distribute, break down and excrete a drug are predictable. It is when those label directions are not followed that we run into concerns. There are distinct differences in the rate of absorption of drugs depending on how they are delivered. If a product is given incorrectly, there is no guarantee that the drug will be effective.
Route of Administration (ROA): The route by which a drug is taken into the body (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, oral, intravenous, topical, intranasal).
Incorrect ROA could lead to underdosing, which is an animal welfare and production concern when a therapeutic level may not be achieved. This will leave cattle vulnerable to the disease being treated or prevented. Underdosing is also a concern from an antibiotic stewardship standpoint, as chronically underdosing antimicrobial drugs can lead to resistance.
The ROA also determines a beef animal’s ability to eliminate the product, affecting withdrawal recommendations, and potentially leading to drug residues being detected in meat.
Subcutaneous injections (Sub-Q or SQ) are placed just under the skin, as opposed to an intramuscular injection where the medication is placed directly into the muscle. Subcutaneous injections are generally less irritating and are the preferred ROA.
Pharmaceutical companies are continually updating products and labels, so become familiar with the current label recommendations and use the subcutaneous route whenever possible.
Volume Recommendations for Cattle Injections
The recommended maximum volume per injection site is 10 ml (cc) per site. Increasing the volume of medication injected into one location will impede a beef animal’s ability to absorb and excrete the medication.
An increased volume can lead to a pocket of unabsorbed medication being left in the tissue. This decreases the efficacy of the treatment and could also be detected as drug residue in the carcass of a beef animal.
A lower volume injection also ensures that the tissue can effectively recover from the irritation of the medication, decreasing the chances of the animal developing an injection site lesion.
Injection site lesions (ISL) cost the beef industry $0.56/head or $1.63 million in 2016 compared to $0.21/hd or $662,951 in 2011 due to higher prevalence rates. There are many steps that can be taken to reduce or even eliminate ISL’s.
Proper Location for Beef Cattle Injections
Only inject beef animals in the recommended safe zone on the neck, never in the rump or loin. This ensures that, if an animal has a reaction to the product and develops a lesion, it can easily be trimmed away from the less valuable chuck, rather than damaging the more valuable round cuts.
Injecting outside of the safe zone in the neck can potentially cause injury and even death to the animal being treated. The nuchal ligament is responsible for supporting the head of a beef animal, and if it is damaged via an injection that animal can suffer severe and permanent paralysis. The same result can occur if the spinal cord is inadvertently hit. The jugular furrow contains the jugular vein and carotid artery. If medications are mistakenly injected directly into the bloodstream, animals may suffer severe drug reactions.
A hand-width of space between medication injections will ensure the tissue can adequately recover from the injection and prevent medications from comingling. If medications mix within the animal, they can interact and cause drug reactions, or even inactivate each other, rendering them useless.
Best Needle Size for Beef Cattle Injections
Choose the appropriate needle size to ensure the product can be delivered while causing the minimum disruption to the tissue. Always choose the smallest gauge needle that can still effectively deliver the type of medication needed. Disposable needles with an aluminum hub, rather than plastic, are preferred.
Class of Cattle
Route of Injection
Needle Gauge
Needle Length
Calves less than 500 pounds
Intramuscular
20-18
1 inch
Subcutaneous
20-18
½ – ⅝ inch
Cattle >500 pounds
Intramuscular
18-16
1 – 1½ inch
Subcutaneous
18-16
½ – ¾ inch
Good Hygiene Methods for Cattle Injections
Keep equipment clean and in good working order to prevent unnecessary tissue trauma and the possibility of localized abscesses.
Never inject through a dirty hide, which will only drag bacteria and debris into the tissue and create a perfect environment for abscesses.
Burred, bent and dull needles will also increase the likelihood of damage and abscessing. This can be prevented by using a quality disposable needle that can be changed anytime damage is evident, every 10-15 injections and every time you enter a multidose vial.
Safe Restraint for Cattle Injections
Cattle that are not properly restrained are more likely to suffer from tissue trauma, incorrect injection technique and location, and are at a higher risk for needle breaks. Ensure that all animals being treated are safely restrained in a chute that allows the processor easy access to the neck and prevents unnecessary movement in the animal being treated.
A little knowledge goes a long way, and understanding the reasoning behind each recommendation can help instill accountability and ensure producers are diligent in the day-to-day tasks involved in raising cattle for food. Little things done right every day safeguard food quality and ensure Canadian food safety remains at a high standard.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Evolution in Cattle Feeding, Management and Consumer Demand 🎙️
Producers who background and finish beef cattle have learned a lot over the past quarter-century thanks to research, including acquiring a better understanding of how nutrition plays into maintaining the health of the animals and meeting market demand.
“There’s been a tremendous amount of research in this area,” says Dr. Karen Beauchemin, who is a retired principal research scientist of ruminant nutrition at the Lethbridge Research and Development Centre with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Back in the early 1980s, Beauchemin remembers projects that showed how barley could be fed to cattle while avoiding acidosis. Under-processing the barley reduced its digestibility while over-processing it created greater fermentation in the rumen, producing more acid. Adding forage to the feed optimized rumination, avoiding acidosis.
“We understood, finally, that we could feed barley safely, but we had to know how to process it properly,” she says, adding that the introduction of ionophores as feed additives also contributed to decreasing the risk of acidosis.
Barley is now, generally, the grain of choice for feedlot operators across Western Canada, although other grains such as corn and wheat are fed depending on their availability and cost.
Changes over the years
“Working more closely with nutritionists is the biggest change I’ve seen over the years,” says Jack Chaffe, who finishes about 3,000 head of cattle annually at his operation north of Mitchell, Ontario. He’s a fourth-generation producer who’s also president of the Beef Farmers of Ontario and vice president of the Ontario Cattle Feeders’ Association.
Ontario beef producer Jack Chaffe
He says feeding more by-products from distillers means it’s crucial to have a balanced ration as well as to use the expertise of nutritionists.
Chaffe uses a wet fibre with syrup (FWS) on his operation, which is similar to wet distillers’ grain.
“It has a little less protein, more fibre and less fat,” he says, adding that he’s also been feeding corn screenings since the mid-1980s. His farm’s location in the heart of southern Ontario’s crop country helps.
“There are some falls where we’re taking screenings from five different elevators,” he says, noting that the quality can be variable from elevator to elevator, so he gets it tested, especially for protein and energy levels.
“In the 1980s, weights were about 1,200 to 1,300 pounds for steers, in the late ‘90s they were 1,350 to 1,400 and today, they’re up to 1,500 pounds and more,” says the professor emeritus at the University of Saskatchewan and consulting nutritionist.
A lot of the change is related to genetics, “hotter” diets (with higher grain content), and more aggressive implant programs.
Implants and additives
Growth promoting implants are used to increase cattle’s feed efficiency and weight gain and produce leaner carcasses.
McKinnon says that, in addition to the 90-to-120-day implants of the past, there are implants now that are active for 200 days in the animal’s ear.
“That gets us away from some re-implanting programs,” he says.
One feed additive is used as a repartitioning agent in the last 20 to 40 days of finishing to move the animal’s metabolism away from fat deposition towards making muscle.
Another new feed additive he mentions is unique in that it reduces ammonia gas emissions from finishing animals, contributing to the industry’s environmental sustainability.
Hotter diets
McKinnon says that, whereas feedlot cattle diets used to be 70 to 80 percent cereal grains, today they are at 80 to 95 percent.
“We’re able to feed diets that are higher in energy,” McKinnon says. In Ontario today, producers are supplementing feed with corn distillers’ grains (DDGs), which have a higher gross energy content than the original corn used during the fermentation process. These by-products are also higher in protein. While corn is the primary grain, DDGs can also be wheat- or sorghum-based.
“The feedlot industry in Ontario is almost based around the ethanol mandate, and we really felt it during the pandemic when DDGs were in tight supply,” Chaffe says.
Corn DDGs are a by-product of ethanol manufacturing. In 2007, the Ontario government mandated that regular gasoline had to have at least five percent ethanol content. That amount was doubled in 2020 and is on track to rise to 15 percent by 2030.
When COVID-19 hit, people stopped driving cars and buying gasoline, so the market for ethanol dried up too.
“Producers were constantly on the phone to nutritionists trying to source different feedstuffs to keep a balanced ration,” he says. “There was about three weeks when there was next to nothing coming out of ethanol plants.”
After a bit of a scramble in which some producers used protein substitutes like soybean meal or wheat shorts and corn for energy, drivers went back on the roads, ethanol plants revved up production again and the supply chain restarted.
Many research projects into the effectiveness of DDGs as a feed ingredient have been conducted over the years, and many of them were funded by the Beef Cattle Research Council.
McKinnon says that grain used for feed in Manitoba is mostly corn with some barley, depending on price and supply. In Saskatchewan it’s mostly barley, with some increasing use of corn silage. In southern Alberta, supply and price determines whether corn and/or barley is used.
“In Western Canada, distillers’ grain is used as an energy and protein source in feedlots,” he says.
Beauchemin says that cost is a big factor in what producers feed cattle.
“The feedlot industry is very flexible, and it doesn’t rely on a single ingredient,” says Beauchemin. “The diets are very fluid in terms of price points for these various ingredients.”
She cites everything from food that would otherwise be wasted from grocery stores and restaurants, to meal made from pressing canola into oil and newer hybrids of corn.
On the last point, Beauchemin says there’s been a definite shift in Western Canada from barley silage to more corn silage over recent times.
“In the early 1980s, you couldn’t grow corn silage in the west,” she says. “With climate change causing a longer growing season, along with hybrids that have been developed to grow in more northerly climates, it allows us to grow corn silage, which is higher in energy than barley silage and is generally higher yielding for dry matter.”
In the last 10 years, a handful of larger feedlots in southern Alberta have begun installing steam flakers in their feed mills to further process both corn and barley.
Feeding cattle ‘hotter’ or higher grain diets doesn’t come without its problems, and for that, the use of ionophores as feed additives has helped.
“They help with feed efficiency, preventing bloat and controlling acidosis to some degree,” McKinnon says, adding that antibiotic compounds help control liver abscesses and digestive upsets.
Feeding and bunk management also has improved over the years, including the number of times of day the cattle are fed, how that feed is put out in the bunk, how the bunks are called (the amount of ration in a particular pen) in terms of the cattle’s intake levels and more.
McKinnon says that today, there’s a greater appreciation for the role of trace minerals like copper, manganese and selenium in the animal’s general metabolism and its immune response.
He says the introduction of micro-machines has been a great leap forward in technology, providing an efficient method for adding vitamins, minerals and antibiotic supplements to feed.
“In the past, they would need separate supplements for steers, heifers and weaned calves,” he says. “Micro-machines are controlled by computer and they mix supplements for every load of feed.”
Market Demand
McKinnon says that the lean meat yield on carcasses has decreased over the past 25 years.
“We’re feeding for more marbling, but at the same time, we’re getting carcasses that are overall fatter than what we were seeing 25 years ago,” he says, adding that the market is not looking for either A or AA grade beef, but looking instead for AAA or higher grades.
Thanks to improved feeding practices in recent decades, beef quality has improved and, consequently, consumer demand for Canadian beef has increased.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Grazing Cattle on Cropland Can Be Mutually Beneficial 🎙️
When we hear stories of farms from previous generations, mixed operations are often the tradition, where people grew crops and had some cattle and other livestock as well. With economies of scale and farm size increasing, farms have generally become more specialized. However, recent rises in input costs and climate crises such as drought have many producers rethinking integrated farming operations.
Click here for the special Cows and Crops issue of The Wire, the BCRC’s monthly e-newsletter.
This may mean owning both cattle and cropland, but it could also mean working with neighbours. In some situations, beef producers have been working with their cropping neighbours to develop mutually beneficial deals where both parties can benefit from having cattle on cropland.
Integrating cattle and cropland is not new, but there are many questions about how it can work on our current landscapes. Researchers at the University of Manitoba have teamed up in search of answers. Dr. Yvonne Lawley, associate professor in the Department of Plant Science, and Dr. Emma McGeough, associate professor in the Department of Animal Science, have been working together on projects involving cover crops, polycrop blends, “shoulder season” grazing and extended grazing.
Be Flexible and Manage Risk
“There is no such thing as a normal year,” says McGeough. She points out that while you can’t control the weather, having a diversified feeding strategy and relationships built with others in your area can help when plans need to be changed. Both researchers note that it is important to have a plan going into the grazing season, but it is just as important to have a plan B and be flexible if the weather throws a wrench in those circumstances. “You have risk management strategies and conditions you count on, but you have to be able to pivot if Mother Nature gives you a different set of conditions,” says Lawley.
“All of these systems can help with risk management,” says McGeough. Whether it is grazing cover crops, grazing stubble or crop residue, salvaging a failed commodity crop or any other method of integrating livestock and crops, having these systems helps provide some safety in case of drought or other climate disasters.
When talking to producers about adding cover crops or management practices to extend the grazing season, the two concerns Lawley and McGeough hear are that practices can be high-risk and high-cost. While these can be prohibitive, McGeough recommends trying practices out on a small scale first to see what will work in your area and on your operation. “Can you seed just a 20-acre plot to see if something will grow or manage only a small segment of your cattle a certain way rather than put all of your eggs in one basket?” she asks.
Trying new ideas on a small scale first can help to reduce risk and cost.
Photo credit: Dr. Emma McGeough
Even within their research trials, Lawley and McGeough have had to make adjustments due to weather. Over the years, between drought, flooding and hail, they have had to accommodate differences in seeding dates, change grazing timelines, salvage crops that were intended for harvest and even use some crops in different seasons than intended. While this can be frustrating it also provides real-world examples of how different systems may be used on farms and how sometimes that can have unexpected benefits. For example, due to weather conditions this year, they were late seeding an annual forage plot in July, however, that crop ended up greener and more lush than earlier seeded plots.
“You can think of us as a bit of a case study for producers who are out there trying to do this,” says Lawley. “I provide the agronomy knowledge and Emma provides the animal experience.” The research team points out that communication has been vital to working together, as both come to the table with different knowledge, goals and expectations. “It’s about building that safe space to have a really clear dialogue where we can discuss how the agronomy affects the feed value and vice versa,” Lawley explains.
Agronomic and Animal Considerations
Key things to remember if thinking of salvaging a crop or grazing cropland for other reasons include:
Keep lines of communication open
Be willing to seek advice from professionals and others who have used similar systems
Cow grazing salvaged lentils. Photo credit: Jesse Williams
Turning cattle out onto cropland can be beneficial as it can return nutrients to the soil, but there are concerns about compaction and uneven nutrient distribution. While many soil scientists are looking into quantifying the costs and benefits of having cattle on cropland, Lawley points out that by being strategic about what crop you plan to grow the following year can help mitigate the risk.
“From a crop perspective, you are going in knowing that you may have to do some residue management or choose a crop that can thrive or at least cope with that,” she says. If grazing a crop with a lot of residue such as corn, you may want to consider a crop that can be seeded later in the following season to allow that residue to dry out. Working with an agronomist can help you plan what to seed next in the rotation. Depending on your fertility strategy, you may choose to seed something like a cereal after grazing annual cropland that could take advantage of the readily available nitrogen. Alternatively, you may choose a nitrogen fixing pulse crop that doesn’t need nitrogen early in the season to allow time for microbes to break down the nitrogen in time to mineralize and be available for the crop next year.
If planning on using cropland for winter feed, it is necessary to think of how the crops themselves will respond to winter weather conditions and grazing. If cattle will be harvesting plants themselves in winter and snow, the crops’ ability to be accessible under snow needs to be evaluated. Considerations such as plant structure and leaf loss and retention late in the growing season are very important for extended grazing.
Another thing to be aware of is the infrastructure required. When turning cattle out on cropland, fencing and water availability need to be considered. Do the logistics of setting up grazing pay off or would it be more economical to bale or silage the feed and move the feed to the cattle rather than the other way around? If extending the grazing season is a long-term goal on your operation, it may pay to invest in infrastructure like electric fencing or portable water systems or to build these materials up over time.
Grazing cattle and crops together can be a win-win solution for both crop and cattle farmers with proper communication and the willingness to try new things and be adaptable to change.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Ergot in Feed: Is There a Safe Concentration for Beef Cattle? 🎙️
Cattle that consume feeds contaminated with the plant disease ergot can have reduced feed intake, gangrene of extremities, lameness, loss of pregnancy and heat stress. Ergot is caused by the fungus Claviceps purpurea; the alkaloids (toxins) present in the ergot bodies are toxic to cattle. Another fungi species called Fusarium graminearumcauses fusarium head blight and produces deoxynivalenol (DON), which can also be toxic to cattle. Many types of feed, including cereal crops, can become infected by ergot and contain hazardous concentrations of alkaloids, with the risk of cattle toxicity increasing if other mycotoxins like DON are present.
Ergot typically develops when wet and cool conditions occur during the flowering stages of cereals and grasses. However, ergotism in cattle has been observed in drought years as well. Grain screenings can be highly contaminated with ergot and are often an interesting alternative feed resource in a drought year.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency recommends a concentration of ergot toxins called alkaloids to be no greater than 2.0-3.0 parts per million (ppm).1
Dr. Gabriel Ribeiro and his team at the University of Saskatchewan recently completed a study evaluating the impacts of the increasing concentrations of ergot in cattle performance. One trial, led by master’s student Jenna Sarich, fed feedlot cattle concentrations of ergot alkaloids ranging from 0.0 ppm to 3.0 ppm on a dry matter basis. By April, the cattle fed the high-alkaloid diet began to show signs of heat stress, including open-mouth panting, on days that were averaging 17°C to 20°C.
To measure the possible impacts of ergot on blood flow to extremities, the team used infrared imaging to capture the changes in temperature to the ears. The photo shows areas with lighter temperatures [primarily] in the ears, eyes and muzzle (lightest colours).
According to Jenna, susceptibility to heat stress is a result of decreased blood flow to the skin that prevents cattle from being able to dissipate heat. Cattle who were heat stressed also had higher body temperatures, which were measured rectally.
Photo courtesy of Jenna Sarich
Jenna also notes the impacted growth performance. Animals in the high-ergot diet had significantly lower average daily gain (ADG) and dry matter intake (DMI) prior to switching to the ergot-free diet. When the ergot was removed, the poor performance was reversed and steers outperformed the control group, reaching similar weights by the end of the study. Although, heat stress symptoms did persist. Additionally, steers receiving 1.50 ppm had significantly impacted performance (ADG and DMI) by the end of the trial and presence of heat stress as well (although to a lesser extent than at 3.0 ppm).
A second trial at AAFC Lethbridge looked at the combined effects of feeding ergot and DON to 40 feedlot cattle. In the diet containing higher concentrations of both ergot (4 ppm) and DON (10 ppm), the animals showed a 36% decrease in dry matter intake, lost 16% of their body weight and their average daily gains decreased by 55%. Renee Bierworth, a master’s student of Dr. Ribeiro and Dr. Tim McAllister, suggests that the combination of mycotoxins demonstrated some compounded effects compared to feeding ergot or DON on their own.
The results of both trials suggest that the recommended concentrations for both ergot and DON in cattle feed may need to be re-evaluated.
A big challenge for producers in dealing with the threat of mycotoxins is that they are a hidden problem. The presence of fungi or mould is a noticeable indicator of a possible threat, but the mycotoxins themselves are invisible, colourless and odourless, and may be present whether or not ergot bodies are visible. The best way to measure the presence of mycotoxins in feed is to submit samples for a mycotoxin panel and an ergot alkaloid panel.
Laboratories offering mycotoxin testing for livestock feed:
When buying feed, consider asking a feed mill nutritionist:
Do you test product for mycotoxins?
Which ingredients do you test?
How frequent is the testing?
Are all staff trained to oversee incoming products?
Photo courtesy of Beef Farmers of Ontario
Ensuring feed quality also means following best practices:
Practice regular feed testing and mycotoxin screening, remembering visual appraisal is unreliable.
Never feed mouldy feed to pregnant animals.
Purchase cereal by-products from reputable feed sources and test for mycotoxins prior to feeding if you are unsure. (Cereal screenings and distillers’ grains are higher risk.)
Source quality, ergot-free feed from trusted sources (feed mills, feed suppliers, etc., that have strong quality control measures in place).
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Remote Drug Delivery Devices -- What You Need to Know 🎙️▶️
This post is written by Dr. Roy Lewis, a veterinarian in Alberta.
Cattle producers and their veterinarians see the need for remote drug delivery devices (RDDDs) when animals can’t be caught or there is severe risk to the handler, and timing of treatment is critical for a favourable outcome.
When a worked-up bull is in the bush a long way from any handling facility and needs medication, it is less stressful on the bull and safer for the handler to dart it. When dealing with younger stock, it may depend on the roping ability of the producer or the amount of open terrain as to whether darting or another method of treatment gets chosen. There is an advantage to treating young calves with pneumonia by darting because it is less stressful than handling those calves. With contagious diseases, darting may be appropriate because gathering a group of animals together increases the risk of spreading the disease, like a case of pinkeye in one animal for example.
https://youtu.be/oyykNg_InnY
RDDDs have evolved from the pole syringe to the long bow, the crossbow and finally to the dart gun. Most new purchases of equipment by cattle producers for remote drug delivery are dart guns. Through a veterinary-client-patient-relationship (VCPR) with a prescription for extra label use, dart guns are primarily used by cattle producers to deliver antimicrobials.
A recent survey in Western Canada found producers and many veterinarians agree RDDD use is their third choice when treatment is necessary; their first choice is to use a handling facility, followed by roping or using a calf hook. The survey also found producers and veterinarians agree on the importance of using the devices properly and closely following proper injection techniques. Survey respondents indicated that the most common products they use in RDDDs are the low-volume macrolides, some of which have pneumonia, foot rot and pinkeye on the label.
Dart guns have pros and cons. Concerns include their accuracy in delivering the proper dosage through the proper route of administration.1,2
The Beef Cattle Research Council (BCRC) has developed resources to help with decisions on RDDD use to stay within beef quality guidelines while being safe and avoiding any drug residues. Resources for producers, available at www.BeefResearch.ca/RDDD, include a five-minute video, decision tree and a review of drug delivery best practices.
Click here to download a one-page PDF for beef producers featuring best practices for remote drug delivery.
For veterinary clinics, the webpage also includes information about printed copies of a best practices brochure and a QR code that leads to RDD resources for use on printed drug labels.
The BCRC’s RDDD decision tree provides guidance on whether to treat the animal and when it’s appropriate to use a RDDD versus a handling facility. You may do this intuitively, but it is always good to conscientiously think about the dos and don’ts when considering using the dart gun. Stick to beef quality guidelines and be sure to have an accurate diagnosis for prudent usage of antimicrobials.
One of the most overtreated things in cattle production is lameness caused by foot rot. There is no doubt foot rot is very responsive to antibiotics, but most times lameness is not actually foot rot, so we all need to be very conscious of that.
By adhering to proper dart selection, needle size and dosage, the product should be administered correctly. In reviewing Canadian sales, over 95% of the darts are half-inch needles for subcutaneous usage. The ¾-inch may be used for subcutaneous in large bulls. That tells me everyone is trying to give products subcutaneously as that is what the label is stating.
Veterinary clinics can share these RDDD resources with beef clients by using this QR code on prescription labels.
Use the targets supplied with the gun and make sure you have got that down pat before attempting your first darting of an animal. If accuracy is good, you don’t get too far away (4-9 meters or 13-30 feet) and only shoot when animals are stationary, your accuracy in the side of the neck can be very good, especially when using the guns with scopes. It is felt that about 200 lbs should be the minimum-sized animal to dart, as the target is very small and the dart could cause damage in smaller animals.
The darts are getting better at full discharge and administering the product subcutaneously if the right length needle is selected. The goal is to try and give the product the same way as we would in a squeeze chute or if the animal was caught.
When two darts are necessary, one could use the other side of the neck to make sure the shots are spread apart much as one often uses both sides of the neck if a calf is treated in the chute. Even though we are delivering the drug with a RDDD, we want to adhere to the same principles we do when delivering drugs by normal injection.
To mitigate risks with specific drugs, there are a couple products toavoid using in RDDDs:
Tilmicosin should never be used in an RDDD because of human safety concerns, and
a product like Excede should never be administered remotely because it needs to be given behind the ear.
It should be noted that all pharmaceutical companies that make these products have been very strong advocates for them NOT to be used in any RDDD device.
Just like with any treatment, record-keeping is necessary. Also, try to recover any dispelled darts and dispose of them in a sharps container as you would any sharps used in cattle production. Discuss the right approach with your veterinarian for any medical or preventative procedure you are doing with your cattle.
Producing quality, wholesome and safe meat should be everyone’s goal. Darting for treatment is a last option and should be pretty infrequent, but if you utilize RDD, do so following the guidelines as close as possible.
1. Coetzee, JF, et al. Pneumatic dart delivery of tulathromycin in calves results in lower antimicrobial concentrations and increased biomarkers of stress and injection site inflammation compared with subcutaneous injection. J Anim Sci. 2018 Jul 28;96(8):3089-3101. Available here.
2. Rivera, JD, et al. Pharmacokinetics of tulathromycin following administration to stocker cattle with remote delivery devices. J Anim Sci. 2019 Nov 4;97(11):4482-4487. Available here.
.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Polycrop Potential: 12 Tips for Using Mixed Forage Crops 🎙️
Polycrops, intercrops, cover crops and cocktail crops are different terms that all encompass planting mixed crop species for livestock feed.
Proponents of polycrops have found that mixing different plant species when growing crops can help improve soils by adding more root systems, microbiological communities and organic matter. Compared to single species crops, polycrops may also show resilience against pests and disease. While benefits are well-publicized, as with any farming practice, trying something new requires a realistic approach.
Many producers are seeding polycrops of three or more species in hopes of improving production, soil organic matter, microbiology and resilience. Twelve tips for using polycrop mixes are included below.
One Saskatchewan Farm’s Experience with Polycrops in Production
Jocelyn Velestuk operates a multi-generational family farm with her husband, two children and her in-laws. The mixed grain and commercial cow-calf operation in southeast Saskatchewan has used polycrops for a few years, with the primary goal of improving their soils.
Jocelyn, who has a background in soil science research, was excited to include polycrops in their rotations. “We had to figure out how to get our land to be more productive, so I started learning about intercrops and polycrops,” she says. “When we were first deciding whether we wanted to jump into them with both feet, we had many conversations,” she adds. Jocelyn admits she was somewhat skeptical because there wasn’t a lot of science backing some of the polycrop claims.
They had an opportunity to try polycrops when they rented a new field that needed some improvements. “There had been heavy tilling,” she describes. “It was definitely hurting, that spongey organic matter was missing,” she says. “Nutrients were non-existent, there was a very low nutrient supply in our soil, so knowing all this, my husband and I asked, how are we going to be profitable?”
They decided the lowest-risk way they could incorporate polycrops was with an annual blend they would make into silage bales.
“I can put whatever in there as long as we get the material,” Jocelyn reasons. “I wanted to make sure we were adding root systems,” she says. “My goals were centered on getting that rhizosphere and getting that soil working again.
“We did try some kale and clovers and did a mix of cereals with oats and barley together, and it didn’t turn out really great,” she admits, adding that flea beetles knocked out the kale which was supposed to make up the bulk of the material. It did still make decent feed in spite of not being as productive as they had hoped.
The rhizosphere is the immediate zone including and between plant roots and soil. Sometimes it is called the “root-soil interface” and is the area that is influenced by roots, root secretions and soil microbes.
The following year, they decided to simplify the mix more. “We kept with red clover, oats and barley which made great feed with huge production,” she says. She also added that in doing so, they found less rust in the cereals compared to when they were grown as monocultures.
In spite of having some past successes with polycrops, this year the Velestuks simplified their cropping decisions even more and decided to stick with straight barley. “With the price of barley being so high and not knowing how your crop is going to be, if we have enough silage and greenfeed then we can combine the rest,” Jocelyn explains.
Using Research to Learn More About Polycrop Popularity
Dr. Bart Lardner with the University of Saskatchewan says his team has been looking at polycrops since they started gaining popularity around five or ten years ago.
The principle behind polycrops is to keep the land covered for longer throughout the growing season and into the dormant season, he says. “Along came the different new mixtures, species and blends, with some that may or may not have been adapted to western Canada,” Lardner adds.
“You can get pretty well anything you can dream up in that mixture, and you’ll see mixtures from three species to 27 species,” Lardner says. “I always challenge producers if you buy the complex versus simple mixtures, are you sure that species 17 or 23 gave you anything for biomass? If you’re paying for it, you want to make sure it works,” Lardner says.
“Based on our experiences there are a lot of claims [about polycrops], but as a research community, we should look at those and validate and be truthful about what’s happening.”
Dr. Bart Larnder, Ministry of Agriculture Strategic Research Program Chair in Cow-Calf and Forage Systems at the University of Saskatchewan
Through collaboration between the Livestock and Forage Centre of Excellence and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lardner and his team are assessing polycrop mixes at two different Saskatchewan sites for yield, biomass and quality. The research compares three treatments of a single oat monoculture; a simple four-species mix of oats, pea, brassica and hairy vetch; and a complex mix with eight species, adding red proso millet, teff grass, chicory and barley to the four-species mix.
After looking at the results, Lardner found that yields were quite comparable among all three treatments of oat, four-species and eight-species mix, coming in at around two tonnes of dry matter/acre during some very dry conditions. “We also saw pretty good crude protein, 13 to 14% and lower [neutral detergent fibre] of around 46 to 48%,” he explains.
Science is showing that polycrops have promise below ground as well. “The good thing is the different rooting systems, the fibrous versus taproots,” he says. “We’re seeing more root biomass with these polys than monocultures,” he says, adding that in the short term, they’ve noticed in areas that previously had low soil organic carbon, the polycrops have increased those levels.
This continuing study will assess data to determine whether the different mixes yielded different greenhouse gas emissions from animals during grazing. Scientists will also continue to look at soil organic carbon changes over time.
Twelve Tips for Using Polycrop Mixes
1. Start out with simple mixes. “Maybe think twice about buying the 20 species mix,” says Lardner. “Go simple so you’re sure when you seed them you can see evidence that they are contributing to yield.” Velestuk agrees and says they try to use plants that they know are already adapted to their area.
2. Start on a smaller scale. “Don’t go crazy and seed a whole quarter, maybe start with 10 or 20 acres, see how that blend works depending on where you’re at, and see how they’ll yield,” says Lardner.
3. Aim for success. Jocelyn performs soil tests and chooses a customized fertilizer blend to meet their specific needs. “We fertilized pretty good, we don’t cheap out, that has to feed our cows,” she says.
4. Feed test. Lardner advises producers tofeed test prior to grazing or feeding polycrops. Farmers should be aware that if they plan to use polycrops for fall or winter grazing, depending on the class of animal, they may need to supplement their herd for energy which can negate any savings.
Polycrops can be baled, grazed, or put up as silage. Mixes can be simple and comprised of a few common annual forage plants such as cereal grains, a pulse and a brassica. They can also be complex and customized and include twenty or more species in the mix.
5. Be mindful of the percentage of species type in the mix and how that can impact forage quality. For example, Dr. Lardner has experience suggesting you don’t want more than 20% of brassicas in the mix. “With too many in there, you can see issues in elevated levels sulfur, nitrates, elevated levels of potassium which is antagonistic with magnesium,” he explains.
6. Consider pre- and post-polycrop weed control. “With a polycrop, you can’t spray in-crop, so if you have noxious weeds, or those ones that want to linger, it might take more herbicides, later on, to help you gain control,” Jocelyn explains. “We’ve always had challenges with weed pressure, and some can have anti-quality factors,” Lardner agrees.
7. Use what you have. For mixing and seeding polycrops, the Velestuks opt to use equipment already on hand. “For mixing seed species, we use a mix mill, and we seed it all with our air drill,” explains Jocelyn.
8. Strike a balance with seed depth when seeding multiple species. Jocelyn says with their polycrops, they seed everything relatively shallow but still at a depth of around three-quarters of an inch. “It needs to be into moisture,” she recommends.
9. Avoid grazing fields before freeze-up. One season, Velestuks included winter triticale in their greenfeed mix with the idea that the triticale would be a post-silage cover crop. “Once we took the silage off, the triticale did come up and we grazed the stuff that was fenced, but those hooves on stubble really pack the soil down,” she cautions.
10.Be aware that polycrops may require special business risk management. Jocelyn notes that ag risk management programs may not support polycrops as easily as single-species commodity crops. Farmers need to determine whether polycrop benefits outweigh the risk of growing a crop that potentially cannot be insured.
11. Keep an open mind on the end-use of polycrops. “Producers may use the crop for silage, or for green manure, that’s an opportunity,” Lardner says. Polycrops can also be used for grazing as a standing crop or for baled feed.
12. Remember perennial forage blends are polycrops, too. Some of the greatest successes on the Velestuk farm have been incorporating perennial forage mixes into shorter-term rotations. They’ve used oats underseeded to yellow blossom sweet clover, sanfoin, bromes, slender wheatgrass and timothy. “The goal was short-term forages, meant to be in for three to five years, but when it’s producing so well, it’s hard to take it out of production. It’s year six, and it’s looking really good still.”
The benefits that polycrops provide may make them suitable for many farms in the short- or even long-term. However, there are a lot of variables that go into cropping decisions. “It really depends on a lot – what our financials are looking like, what our business priorities or challenges are that year, what the markets are doing, what world stuff is going on,” says Jocelyn Velestuk. “Science can sometimes be dealing with averages, but there is no prescription for farming and everyone must adapt the science to their own farm circumstances,” she concludes.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Producing Dairy-Beef: Starting Off on the Right Hoof 🎙️
This is part two in a series that will explore the opportunities and challenges of dairy-beef cross calves with perspectives from across the value chain including the primary producer, backgrounder, feedlot and processor.
Part one of this series discussed the challenges and opportunities for the feeding and processing sectors. For these sectors to turn a profit from dairy-beef calves, these animals need to have the right start.
For this article, “dairy-beef” refers to an animal with a dairy dam and a beef sire.
Dairy-beef calves at Bidalosy Farms
Management of dairy-beef calves is variable from operation to operation; however, a strong focus needs to be placed on the early care of these calves. Practices such as adequate colostrum, early health protocols, proper nutrition and housing are all necessary to develop an animal that is desirable for the beef sector.
Andrew McCurdy, Bidalosy Farms, Old Barns, NS
Andrew McCurdy, Bidalosy Farms
Andrew McCurdy’s family began feeding dairy-beef calves in 2015 to increase the value of his non-replacement calves that would not become replacement females in the milking herd. He started using beef sires through artificial insemination to produce dairy-beef calves. “Determining which bulls to use has been a learning curve. Using EPDs to make sire selections is different from the dairy sector which is strictly using genomics,” Andrew says.
In 2018, the McCurdys built a calving barn which would allow them to better handle newborn calves (both conventional dairy and dairy-beef) and give them the best start possible. At first, the barn was equipped with an automatic calf feeder to reduce labour costs.
Since milk replacer alone was costing the operation approximately $4,000 a month, a decision was made to remove the automatic feeder and switch to feeding whole milk and acidified milk using mob feeders (buckets with multiple nipples) for the first week of life. “This was a huge savings, so we have been doing this ever since,” Andrew says.
Andrew says in order to be successful with these calves as beef animals, health protocols are key. “We were able to skate along the first two years in a brand-new barn, but after that we had a scours wreck,” he says.
Acidified milk is the process of lowering the pH of the milk using an acid, like citric acid, to reduce bacterial growth and reduce spoilage without using refrigeration.
A purebred Holstein (left) and a dairy-beef feeder (right) from Bidalosy Farms
Their operation now uses a scour vaccine in the herd and gives a nasal vaccine to calves under a week old. Until four to five months of age, all of his calves are commingled together. After this age, the calves are sorted into either a replacement or feeder calf group. The feedlot calves are given a modified live vaccine and switched to a feeder diet after they have reach 400 pounds.
In 2020, they converted a previous dairy barn into a slatted floor feeder barn. The facility currently finishes 150 head per year and can hold 60 head at a time. Dairy-beef calves are purchased from other operations that also provide a good start to their calves — “herds that have good management practices such as a herd health protocol, adequate nutrition and good colostrum management,” Andrew says.
The feeders are implanted and weighed every 90 days and are fed a diet containing high moisture corn, grass, mineral with rumensin, roasted beans, soybean oil, barley and corn silage with a gain of approximately four pounds per day. Andrew says, “One of the biggest benefits of doing the 90-day weigh-ins was learning what a finished animal actually looked like. We have also improved our handling capabilities with the dairy herd based on what we have learned with the feedlot.”
Kurtis Moesker, Shylane Holsteins, Perth County, ON
The Perth County region of Ontario is home to 325 dairy farms which produces 11% of the province’s milk supply and a large volume of purebred and dairy-beef calves each year, according to the latest statistics from the Government of Ontario.
Overhead view of the backgrounding pens from Shylane Holsteins
Kurtis Moesker started feeding calves from surrounding dairy operations in Perth and Oxford counties on a trial basis in 2014. The operation was already feeding dairy cows and replacement heifers. Kurtis noted, “Nobody wanted to feed dairy calves. We were already set up for feeding cows and heifers, so the calves seemed like a logical next step.”
Kurtis starts 5,000 calves per year, meaning the calves are bottle fed using milk replacer until they are old enough to be weaned off the milk replacer. Out of the 5,000 calves, 60% are raised for veal and the remainder are backgrounded for beef feedlots. The feedlot bound calves are sold once they have reached 800 pounds.
Kurtis starts all calves (both veal and beef) in individual calf hutches. However, as of December 31, 2020, Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Veal Cattle will no longer allow veal calves to be tethered in their individual housing and they must be housed in groups by the time they are eight weeks of age. For Kurtis, this has resulted in major changes for his management practices.
His operation is currently expanding with the construction of a new 2,000-head calf barn and a 3,500-head feeder barn, which will be completed in 2023. In the new calf barn, the calves will be fed individually using a bucket feeder. “Starting the calves is not a glamorous job, there is a lot of manual labour involved,” Kurtis says.
Early calf health management is key for the operation. With the support of his veterinarian, a calf record app was developed to track all the calves by linking their data to their RFID and management tags. The app allows Kurtis and his veterinarian to track the health data of calves coming from the various dairies he purchases from. This has supported the identification of any major health issues that may need to be addressed with a producer and has also allowed Kurtis to make economical decisions with health treatments.
“The app has allowed us to make smart decisions about whether an animal is being treated for the first time or the third time,” he says. “This can help determine whether further treatment should take place.”
Over time, Kurtis has built a good relationship with the nearby feedlots by producing a reliable source of calves that will succeed in a feedlot. “There is an argument for sustainability with the dairy-beef calves,” Kurtis says. “These calves are produced closer to home, which means less trucking and it produces a more efficient [dairy-beef] animal that was going to be produced and fed somewhere. Dairy producers are getting better at selecting their replacements; therefore, there’s going to be more calves to feed.”
Dairy-beef calves are ultimately a by-product of dairy production that can be viewed as an opportunity for the beef sector. These calves are more efficient and resilient than a purebred dairy calf and they are available year-round, but nothing beats a beef calf. However, with proper and strategic management, these dairy-beef calves have a place in the value chain that supports the entire Canadian beef sector.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Dairy-Beef: Shifting from the Parlour to the Feedlot 🎙️
This is part one in a series that will explore the opportunities and challenges of dairy-beef cross calves with perspectives from across the value chain including the primary producer, backgrounder, feedlot and processor.
Across the country, a growing number of dairy-beef cross calves sourced from Canada and the United States are appearing in Canadian feedlots, a sight that has raised understandable concern for many cow-calf producers. One of these concerns has been how their feeder calves will compete for feedlot spaces against less expensive dairy-beef crosses.
For this article, “dairy-beef” refers to an animal with a dairy dam and a beef sire.
Dairy-beef feeders at Kolk Farms Ltd.
In Canada, the demand for more efficient dairy production has led to intense genetic selection to identify the most productive replacement dairy heifers. Due to advances in artificial insemination technology, sexed semen has become a commonly used tool to further this initiative. Using sexed semen from the best dairy sires has allowed dairy producers to produce optimal replacement heifers from their best dairy cows. The genetically inferior dairy cows still need to be bred and calve in order to produce milk, but these calves are not retained for breeding and ultimately go for veal or beef production. However, straight-bred dairy calves (regardless of breed) do not make ideal beef animals.
In terms of their structure, a dairy animal has been selectively bred to focus energy into milk production and not into carcass traits. In the past, an animal that was strictly a dairy breed did not perform as well in a feedlot scenario as the traditional beef animal. One way to improve the “beefiness” of a dairy animal is to crossbreed dairy cows with a beef sire. By doing this, the dairy-beef animal produced will be more tolerant to the weather, grow faster, be more feed efficient, will take less time on feed and produce more beef than a straight-bred dairy animal.
These dairy-beef animals, while improved genetically, are not without challenges. Management of dairy-beef calves is variable from operation to operation. However, a strong focus needs to be placed on the early care of these calves in order to give them their best chance at the feedlot.
Leighton Kolk, Kolk Farms Ltd., Iron Springs, AB
Leighton Kolk, Kolk Farms Ltd.
Three years ago, Leighton Kolk began sourcing dairy-beef crossed calves from the U.S. and Canada. Due to the size of American dairy herds, calf ranches were developed as a way to prepare the undervalued male dairy calves for feedlots. Leighton says the ranches they have been purchasing from provide colostrum for three days (some as early as two hours after birth), follow a vaccination protocol, castrate and dehorn the calves prior to sale at six months of age.
Leighton says their operation has started a database to track the performance of the dairy-beef feeders, as “a too-high energy ration too early in life can cause liver damage, and we want to be able to track this.” He says the dairy-beef crosses also take longer to finish (up to one year) and don’t always yield the same as a beef animal.
Due to the seasonality of the Canadian beef industry, there is an influx of traditional beef feeder calves into the marketplace typically in the fall. Leighton says this can be a challenge for feedlots and compares a feedlot to a hotel. “In order to make money a hotel has to be at full capacity year-round,” he says. “It can’t rely on just the peak season to run a successful business. A feedlot is a similar scenario, the dairy-beef feeders can be purchased year-round to fill pens when there are not as many beef animals available.”
Dairy-beef feeders at Kolk Farms Ltd.
According to Leighton, the feeding of dairy-beef cross calves in Canada can be viewed as a win for the sustainability of both the dairy and beef sectors. “For the dairy sector, utilizing these animals to produce a crossbred feeder animal that performs much better than a straight-bred dairy steer moves these animals from an undervalued product to a higher-value product. For the feeding sector, these animals were being fed somewhere regardless. By adding beef genetics, this improves the feed efficiency from an 8:1 feed conversion in a purebred Holstein to a 7:1 conversion in a crossed steer, resulting in three to four less pounds of feed every day.”
One of the largest concerns from cow-calf producers is that the dairy-beef crossed feeders will displace feedlot spaces for their calves. Leighton says, in the big picture, this isn’t the case.
“Straight beef is still more desirable and feedlot operators will pay more. Keep producing good beef and you will get paid regardless. Displacing a beef animal isn’t the full picture.”
— Alberta dairy-beef producer Leighton Kolk
“The straight beef won’t ever be displaced, but the dairy-beef crosses will likely remain 20-30% of our operation,” says Alberta producer Leighton Kolk.
Since 2003, the cow herd has been in decline across North America. “We still want a healthy beef industry and packing industry. We are an exporting country, we still want to produce grain-fed, high-value, high carcass characteristics, tasty, juicy beef that our customers want. We’re good at doing this in a sustainable way here in Canada. If we keep this system running, we’re also keeping other industries running – feed sector, labour force, trucking, biofuels, etc. If you’re not replacing the cow herd, we’re in decline which can make us less competitive.”
Leighton says they have received some push-back from plants because the straight-bred dairy carcass isn’t the same as a beef carcass; yields can be lower than a beef animal.
Atlantic Beef Products Inc. (ABPI), based in Albany, Prince Edward Island, is the only federally inspected beef processing plant located in Atlantic Canada. The plant primarily processes cattle from within Atlantic Canada, but sometimes must supplement production with cattle from Quebec and Ontario.
Russ Mallard is the president of ABPI, the current chair of Canada Beef, the marketing arm of the Canadian Beef Check Off Agency, and vice chair of the Canadian Meat Council. According to Russ’ experience with processing “dairy-beef” at the plant, “Holstein steers, if fed the right diet very early on in their life cycle, will have a better meat-to-bone ratio than Holstein calves that are not fed the proper diet.”
Typically, purebred Holsteins do not have the muscle mass of a dairy-beef cross and, as a result, have thinner rib-eyes and striploins. Because of this, Holstein beef on the rail is discounted accordingly. Dairy-beef crosses are more muscled and are not discounted.
A comparison of strip loins from A) conventional beef, B) dairy-beef cross and C) conventional dairy
The first seven days of a dairy-beef calf’s life are very important to set up a calf to be a successful dairy-beef feeder. Among other things, ensuring that newborn calves are provided with good quality colostrum, proper antibiotic use and appropriate shipping times are critical to their long-term success at the feedlot.
In addition to the processing facility, Atlantic Beef Products also operates Triple H Farms Inc., an 800-head feedlot, also located in PEI. Bruce Andrews, vice president of operations for ABPI, also oversees the feedlot. “The purpose of the feedlot is to supply the plant with beef when local cattle are not available,” Bruce says. “We finish primarily dairy-beef crosses and beef cattle. We have first-hand experience with dairy calves, as well, and we know they are more challenging to raise successfully, particularly if they don’t get a good start with colostrum, timely vaccinations and the right feed mix.”
A “bob” calf is an industry term used for calves less than 30 days old and may be a dairy breed or a dairy-beef cross.
“We know a lot of value can be added to the Island agricultural sector if dairy calves can stay here to be fed, rather than being shipped off Island for veal production,” Bruce says. “Farm cash receipts can increase and stay local, and the manure also stays local which benefits the potato producers.”
Russ adds, “At the end of the day, we’re still producing a local product, and consumers from across the country love beef from our region.” Like the rest of Canada, the beef herd in Atlantic Canada has been in decline since 2003. “Feeding dairy calves and dairy-beef crosses is one way to ensure that the plant can continue to provide its essential service for the beef industry in Atlantic Canada.”
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Developing a Grazing Plan: Make the Most of the Forage You Have Available 🎙️
Developing a grazing plan is an important first step to ensure effective grazing management on an operation, and it can help save a producer on their cost of production in the long run.
A grazing plan that matches animal numbers to predicted forage yields is something that should be done prior to animal turn out. Within a grazing plan there are several key steps that should be included. These include setting objectives and goals, resource inventory and evaluation, balancing forage supply and demand, cost-benefit and risk assessment, implementation, monitoring, and finally, the plan update.
Setting Goals and Objectives
CLICK THE PLAY BUTTON TO LISTEN TO THIS POST:
A key step in developing a grazing plan is defining the goals and objectives for the entire grazing operation. This includes lifestyle choices such as how much time a producer may want to spend moving their livestock around each week, profitability measures and biological outcomes such as forage production, soil health, animal performance and ecosystem impacts.
Resource Inventory & Evaluation
Completing an inventory and evaluating resources is crucial for developing and implementing a successful grazing system. This resource inventory can answer questions such as:
How much forage is available and at what times of the grazing season?
Is the forage source able to meet the animals required nutritional requirements?
How long is the intended grazing season?
What physical infrastructure is available or needed?
Balancing Forage Supply & Demand
Ensuring that the forage supply and demand is balanced is a critical step when developing a grazing plan. Whether managing native rangeland or a tame forage species, it is important that these four basic principles of management are applied:
the number of animals is balanced with the forage supply,
there is a uniform distribution of animals over the landscape,
periods of grazing and rest are alternated to maintain the vegetation and
the kind of livestock that are most suited to that forage and management are used.
How the forage supply and demand are balanced all ties back to the goals and objectives for the grazing management of that operation.
Cost-Benefit & Risk Assessment
The cost-benefit and risk assessment is the next step in developing a grazing plan. Effective grazing management on a pasture ensures high forage yield, sustainability and animal health and productivity, all of which impact the cost of production. Completing a risk assessment in addition to looking at the cost-benefits can help an operation improve its grazing management plan.
Implementation
Implementation is the next stage in developing a grazing plan. There are several different grazing systems a producer may choose to implement due to variance in climate, plant species, soil and livestock. These different grazing systems include but are not limited to: rotational grazing, forward grazing, creep grazing, limit grazing, stockpile grazing and extended grazing.
Monitoring
After the grazing plan has been implemented, it is important to ensure the pasture is monitored to make sure the objectives and goals that the producer set up at the beginning of their grazing plan are met. Keeping accurate and up-to-date pasture records is vital to inform future grazing plans by providing information such as an accurate assessment of the carrying capacity of a pasture.
Plan Update
After monitoring the pasture, if the current plan did not meet the goals and objectives, it is important to consider updating the grazing plan to better aim for these goals next season. Grazing plans should be flexible to accommodate changing conditions such as fluctuations in livestock numbers or drastic swings in precipitation.
Wanting more support in developing a grazing plan? Enroll in this free, six-part email course, where you will explore rangeland health assessment, forage crop production records, feed inventory and feed testing, and calculating livestock forage demand and carrying capacity for your operation.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Forage Rejuvenation: Fertilization and the Influence of Soil pH 🎙️
Soil sampling photos courtesy of Perennia Food and Agriculture
The Rejuvenation of Hay & Pasture page on BeefResearch.ca has been “rejuvenated” to include more content relevant to Eastern Canadian producers. Updated information has also been added for the various methods of rejuvenating forages in regions across the country.
Rejuvenation of a forage stand, whether hay or pasture, involves using one or a combination of methods to increase productivity with a shift towards higher yielding forage species that provide improved nutritional value for livestock.
If an assessment of the current forage stand shows that there is not enough of a desired plant species, then fertilization can be an effective tool to reinvigorate and increase forage yields. Starting with a soil test, improving nutrient deficiencies can increase forage production.
Before making the investment in fertilizer, soil pH should be accounted for in conjunction with fertilizer plans—in the event of low soil pH, nutrients may be present in the soil but unavailable for uptake by plant species. When soils are very acidic (pH less than 5.8), soil bacteria and nitrogen-fixing bacteria in legume stands are negatively affected and soil biological activity is reduced. The opposite of this is also true, raising the pH too high can reduce the solubility of aluminum and manganese, which can be potentially toxic to plants at high levels.
A soil test is essential to determine which nutrients are currently available and which may be deficient. Optimum nutrient uptake by most crops occurs at soil pH between 6.0 and 7.0.
The graphic below illustrates the availability of plant nutrients, toxic elements and microbial activity with the change in pH. Optimum nutrient uptake by most crops occurs at soil pH between 6.0 and 7.0. Low pH soils are common in Eastern Canada due to the underlying bedrock and soil types, and often require amendments every few years to offset the natural progression to a return to lower pH levels. Adjusting soil pH will increase the solubility of nutrients and allow them to become more available to plants. Adding fertilizer to low pH soils without pH amendment will not solve the problem of nutrient insolubility.
In the regions across Canada where acidic soils are a limiting factor for forage production, a common practice is to apply a material that contains some form of lime or an effective calcium carbonate equivalency (such as wood ash). Lime type should be selected based on your soil test; dolomitic lime should be selected if magnesium is required over calcitic lime. Contact your local extension staff or agronomic consultants if you have questions regarding which lime source is most suitable to your situation.
When an application of lime is needed, the lime is most effective if it is incorporated prior to seeding or at least six months in advance when overseeding or sod-seeding.
Adjustments of pH should be considered before fertilizer applications. At a soil pH of 5, only 50% of the fertilizer that is applied is available to crops, compared to 80% in soil with a pH of 6.
When an application of lime is needed, the lime is most effective if it is incorporated prior to seeding or at least six months in advance when overseeding or sod-seeding. Lime should not be applied at the same time as fertilizer to prevent interactions with the fertilizer before incorporation in the soil. It may take one to three years to become fully effective, especially if it is not incorporated. On-farm demonstrations in Atlantic Canada have shown that applying lime to pastures can increase productivity up to 30% the year after application. With this type of soil amendment, pH is improved, and less fertilizer will be required due to better availability of soil nutrients.
For more information about forage rejuvenation, including making the decision to rejuvenate or not, goals and objectives, methods to consider and costs and benefits, visit Rejuvenation of Hay & Pasture.
At a soil pH of 5, only 50% of fertilizer applied is available to crops, compared to 80% with a soil pH of 6.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
One Health Strategies Help a Farm Family Navigate a "Winter from Hell" 🎙️ ▶️
For Tyler and Nancy Haraga, March 10, 2018, will forever stand out in their minds.
https://youtu.be/yQ0WpH6IXm8
“It was forty below with four to five feet of snow,” recalls Tyler. It had been a brutal winter, with unrelenting cold and record snowfall that persisted into March and spring simply refused to come.
In order to give their expected calves a fighting chance against the cold, the Haragas brought in heavy equipment to clear snow off a large area and packed it with clean, dry straw. (0:16)
The Haraga Ranch in Skiff, Alberta
As the cold continued and the calves began to come, Tyler started to notice a few sick calves. “There were a couple with scours, and we never have had scours,” says Tyler, who attributed it to the unusually harsh conditions.
At first, the calves seemed to respond to treatment, but as more calves hit the ground, Tyler realized there was a major problem. “We’ve got a wreck,”he said to Nancy, who was home caring for their children nearly three miles from the farm site.
As the sick calves kept piling up, they had nearly 40 calves on IV therapy at one time. “It was physically and mentally draining. We were so tired, so depressed,” says Tyler, who along with his father, worked around the clock to save as many animals as they could.
Recognize the symptoms of mental fatigue, and seek support when needed.
Source: Preparing the Alberta Beef Sector for Disease-Related Sector-Wide Emergencies: Producer Handbook
Seeking Expertise
Despite the numerous offers of help from friends and neighbors, the Haragas were worried that the problem was potentially contagious and didn’t want to risk passing it on to neighbouring operations. “There’s no point in devastating the entire country with it,” explained Nancy.
Despite the stress the Haragas showed resilience and forward-thinking, seeking out options through the Diagnostic Services Unit (DSU) at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (UCVM). (1:59)
“We have two different ways we can help,” says Dr. Lindsay Rogers, program outreach coordinator of the DSU at UCVM. “One way is with diagnostics and the other way is with veterinarians and animal health experts that can go out on farm.”(2:41)
The DSU works in cooperation with the local attending veterinarian to help in cases where further investigations are required beyond what the local practitioner is able to provide.
Veterinary pathologists at the Diagnostics Services Unit at the University of Calgary Faculty of Veterinary Medicine diagnosed the Cryptosporidium outbreak at the Haraga Ranch.
In the Haragas’ case, the DSU diagnosed the fast-acting pathogen infecting their calves as Cryptosporidium, or “crypto” for short. Cryptosporidium is a microscopic parasite that has a tough outer shell making it very durable in harsh conditions. The parasite spreads through contact with infected animal feces or contaminated water sources. (3:19)
“It only takes a tiny little speck to touch that new baby and they’re infected,” notes Nancy.
“We were creating a haven for it to spread,” Tyler Haraga says, referring to the Cryptosporidium parasite present in the bedding pack they had created for their newborn calves.
By the time the Haragas had a diagnosis, the environment was already saturated with Cryptosporidium. For that year’s calf crop, supportive care and quickly moving the naïve calves and pregnant cows as far away from that straw pack as possible was the best action to take.
While it is distressing that lag time in testing causes an illness to spread, getting a correct diagnosis is pivotal. “We are able to do things to help prevent infection in subsequent years in that herd,” says Dr. Jennifer Davies, a veterinary pathologist at UCVM. (3:05)
Once the diagnosis is made, the DSU team can work with the producer and their veterinarian to help make plans for the present outbreak and future management of the herd.
The Spread of a Zoonotic Disease
Cryptosporidium, like many scour-causing pathogens, is a “zoonotic” disease, meaning the pathogen can infect both animals and human hosts, transmitting from one to another. “As a pathologist, if I diagnose a case of Cryptosporidium in a scouring calf, I’m then making a comment in my note back to the veterinarian: ‘This is a zoonotic disease so if you, or other people such as the producer, have come into contact with these calves and are experiencing any illness it is important to seek medical care and to let them know about the potential exposure’,” says Dr Jennifer Davies.
The potential for exposure for the Haraga family was high, and the entire family was at risk.So, when their 8-year-old son began showing symptoms, it was no surprise to the Haragas that one of them had fallen ill to the highly contagious zoonotic pathogen. (4:01) “He couldn’t stand, he was in the fetal position because there was so much pain in his stomach,” says Nancy, recalling the day she rushed her son into urgent care.
“We were living and breathing this stuff for three straight weeks,” says Tyler Haraga, referring to the Cryptosporidium pathogen.
When a zoonotic disease is identified in a human, Public Health becomes involved to help identify the origin and prevent possible spread of that disease within the population. “We will help support the producer with strategies and management techniques to try and prevent additional transmission,” explains Theron White, disease control coordinator with Environmental Public Health at Alberta Health Services. (5:06)
In the case of the Haragas, the veterinary team, the DSU and Public Health all worked together in what is now known as the “One Health Initiative”. This model of care has all interested parties working as one in a well-connected cluster of resources, each acknowledging the importance of each other to achieve a common goal.“The One Health Initiative is the understanding that human health, environmental health and animal health are all intricately connected, and we can no longer put each of those in a silo,” says Dr. Rogers. (4:51)
Biosecurity Protocols
In the aftermath of this devastating outbreak, many lessons were learned. For example, the Haraga family has become very conscious of where their boots have been and what they may be bringing home. “We have definitely become more aware; our kids have become more aware,” says Nancy. (6:40)
They may never know how the pathogen arrived at their farm, but by having a solid biosecurity plan, they can do their best to ensure other diseases cannot follow suit. As for the herd, they know that Cryptosporidium has the potential to resurface if conditions are right, so they have a bio management plan which includes a strategy to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
This interactive graphic illustrates some common ways a herd becomes open, allowing disease to enter.
Hover over the red pushpins below for specific protocols for each biosecurity area.
One strategy they have implemented since the outbreak is a spring calving program. (6:54) When asked about the results of this decision Tyler says, “Cows are calved out on grass and they get up bouncing.” Tyler and Nancy will never be able to recover the genetics lost in the outbreak. The financial burden of wrecks like this is often felt for years. However, the Haragas family’s cooperation with a One Health approach, including human and veterinary diagnostics teams to create a plan and prevention strategy as well as their willingness to share their experience, has been a silver lining.
“Don’t be afraid to talk about it,” offers Nancy as her closing advice. “You should be talking about it, because somebody somewhere has gone through it and they’re going to know someone who can help you.”
A special thanks goes to Dr. Jen Davies, Dr. Lindsay Rogers, Dr. Eugene Janzen, Dr. Vivien Suttorp, Theron White, and Nancy and Tyler Haraga for their collaboration and participation in this project.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Taking Pain Management Mainstream-- Beef Producers Add Pain Medication to Their Routines and Benefit Their Herds🎙️
Pain management for beef cattle has evolved significantly in the past two decades. Scientists have gained a greater understanding of what pain looks like in an animal and how reducing pain can affect an animal’s well-being.
The beef industry has also responded, with the advent of user-friendly, cost-effective pain medications as well as veterinary teams and producers skilled at implementing effective pain mitigation.
“More veterinarians and producers are recognizing pain in cattle, and we now have a multitude of tools such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAIDs) drugs like Flunixin, Ketoprofen, and Meloxicam, and local anesthesia, such as lidocaine blocks, that we can use to better manage pain,” explains Dr. Jennifer Pearson, DVM, Ph.D. Pearson, a professor at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (UCVM), studies cow-calf health and reproductive management, including pain mitigation.
“With new information about how to better manage pain in cattle, we can make appropriate management decisions to mitigate the health losses associated with pain such as illness and loss of production,” says Pearson.
Pain management drugs, like NSAIDs, require a veterinary prescription. Today, more producers than ever are talking to their veterinarians to discuss pain relief options to help their herds withstand routine painful procedures like castration. As well, the use of pain medication is increasingly part of a producer’s toolbox for treating pain during relatively commonplace events, such as calving or calf sickness.
In 2014, just over 4% of beef producers surveyed indicated they were controlling pain during castration. By 2017, up to 28% of producers reported using pain medication.
Dr. Jennifer Pearson with UCVM has researched post-calving pain management. Preliminary findings suggest calves treated with Meloxicam following a difficult delivery may thrive more than their counterparts.
Pain in beef cattle is often thought of in the context of tissue damage, such as castration, injury, lameness or surgery, Pearson says. Inflammation from diseases like scours or pneumonia can also cause discomfort. Although calving is a natural process, it can be painful as well. Cows and calves that withstand a difficult delivery may benefit from pain management.
“Very few studies have looked at the implementation of pain medications in beef cows and calves after a difficult birth,” says Pearson. “Our research at UCVM has shown that calves that receive Meloxicam after a difficult calving gain more weight in the first week of life compared to calves that received a placebo (no medication),” she explains. She adds that preliminary findings from a recent field trial also showed that calves receiving Meloxicam after a difficult calving expressed more play behaviour and were more active, compared to their counterparts that received the placebo.
“Currently, we are recommending pain medication to be given to cows and calves after a difficult calving, but more research is needed to better understand how this pain medication can mitigate other negative effects of pain in cows and calves,” Pearson describes.
Pearson says there haven’t been any studies that investigate the economic benefit of using pain medication for a difficult calving, but when speaking with producers she finds they are more than willing to reduce pain or suffering with a quick dose of pain drugs as an act of good stewardship. The cost of the medication doesn’t appear to be a barrier to its use, Pearson observes.
Cow-Calf Care
Garrett Wolf raises cattle with his wife Jacquelyn near Spruce View, Alberta. On their farm, managing pain is simply a part of what they do when processing calves in the springtime or when treating a sick animal.
“We’re not really doing anything crazy, it’s become a practice that we do every year that makes sense for us,” Wolf says. “Our vet got a lot of people into it,” he explains, adding that they started using it on a trial basis about four or five years ago and kept it up. “It’s just so dirt cheap compared to everything else.”
At spring processing, in addition to tagging and vaccinating his calves, Garrett surgically castrates his steer calves, giving them a dose of oral Meloxicam to help manage pain. “Anyone can administer it, it’s less invasive than a needle,” he says.
For producers looking for strategies to manage pain in their herds, the first step is to ensure they have a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship. Veterinarians can provide insight and guidance that is specific to a farm’s unique needs.
If he has to treat calves for sickness, such as scours, Wolf consults his veterinarian to determine if there is an opportunity to include pain management. “Anytime we treat a calf, it’s in pain of some kind,” he explains.
He finds the cost of pain medication to be relatively affordable. “The pain management isn’t a miracle cure but it’s quite apparent it helps,” he says. “If it helps a little bit, it’s worth it, especially for the price,” Garrett concludes.
“Return-on-investment aside, it’s the right thing to do.”
— Garrett Wolf, beef producer from Spruce View, Alberta
Remember Pain Relief When Treating Foot Rot
Dr. Jacques van Zyl, DVM, a beef veterinarian with Ontario-based Metzger Veterinary Services, says pain management is standard practice for him. Most clients are open to using NSAIDs, he says, and adding a pain control product to a treatment protocol for diseases such as foot rot is manageable.
Dr. Jacques van Zyl is an Ontario veterinarian that works with beef cattle. When treating cattle for disease, he prescribes pain medication. “If they aren’t in pain, they will come up to the bunk to feed or they get around faster for breeding,” he explains. (Photo courtesy of Metzger Veterinary Services)
“Foot rot is painful, we do know that,” he says.
The only product labeled for managing pain due to foot rot is pour-on Banamine. “Anything pour-on needs to be absorbed through the skin,” van Zyl explains, noting that there is room for error with administration. “It must be applied to the skin, not just poured on top of the hair. Improper application is a common issue for failure to respond to treatment,” he says.
Van Zyl acknowledges that pour-on products, particularly in pasture situations, may not be practical for producers to apply. He recommends producers contact their vets for other available pain control options that might be feasible.
He points out lameness can have several causes and getting an early and accurate diagnosis is key. Veterinarians should lift the foot and inspect the area for swelling, redness, and other signs of infection to rule out injury or a foreign object embedded in the foot that could otherwise cause pain.
“You have to be sharp on the follow-up and look at treatment success rates,” he says, noting that the bacteria causing foot rot, Fusobacterium necrophorum, typically responds to antibiotics very quickly.
Van Zyl says that there has been an increase in combination drugs that work to manage both pain and infection. “I think that might indicate a change in the market, guys want to give something for a reduction of fever but don’t want to give two needles, so there are more options available that are a one-shot deal,” he explains.
“Getting more products on label for pain management is the biggest thing,” van Zyl says.
Feedlot Finds Pain Management a Worthwhile Venture
Experienced Alberta feedlot operator Leighton Kolk has seen a transition in the approach toward cattle care that includes a willingness to incorporate pain management.
Leighton Kolk and his family operate Kolk Farms, a large feedlot operation in southern Alberta. They take animal comfort seriously and use a variety of different products to help manage pain, as well as practice low-stress animal handling. (Photo courtesy of KolkFarms.com)
Leighton, who is the CEO of Kolk Farms, based out of Iron Springs, Alberta, has seen the industry prioritize stress reduction and pain management in beef cattle.
“I guess it’s two-fold,” he explains. “One is recognizing the importance of pain management and the second is then actually having something that we can use,” Kolk says. Having the philosophy that managing pain is worthwhile goes hand-in-hand with producers gaining access to user-friendly products.
“It’s nice to have a $6 [per head] treatment and we know it works,” Kolk says.
His pain control go-to is oral Meloxicam. “It’s very economical and easy to use and works really well, we use that for everything,” Kolk explains but adds that Meloxicam has a 35-day pre-slaughter withdrawal period. He has a few other options if animals are getting close to their harvest date. “[Injectable] Metacam works well too and has a 20-day withdrawal,” he explains. Anafen is another pain drug that has a much narrower one-day withdrawal window.
As research surrounding pain in beef cattle has grown, so too has the availability of medications that veterinarians and producers can use to manage pain. (Photo courtesy of KolkFarms.com)
As prey animals, cattle tend to hide the fact that they are in pain, so the Kolks don’t wait for an animal to show signs of discomfort before they administer pain medicine. “We don’t like to display pain if we don’t have to, and neither do cattle,” he says. They use pain drugs for castrations, prolapses and just about any condition that might potentially cause a feedlot animal pain.
For lameness, they will also use pain control strategies but first diagnose the underlying cause. “We will use it usually in conjunction in picking up a foot or looking for that injury or rock stuck in their hoof or a toe abscess,” he explains.
Managing pain is important for staff morale as well. “One thing about our staff, is they do the job because they care about the animal and when they can see an animal that is comfortable, they feel better about their job,” Leighton says.
“I feel better and can hold my head up proud knowing I’m not causing distress and the side benefit is the cattle perform better,” he explains. “So often in livestock agriculture, doing the right thing seems to almost always be the right thing economically. The big win I see is with animal comfort,” he concludes.
While pain management is still advancing, producers, scientists, veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies are working together to develop practical, effective pain management solutions.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Chute Decisions – Using Low Tech and High Tech Record Systems to Help Make Decisions Chute-Side 🎙️
The best record-keeping system is the one that will be used by your operation. Whether it is recipe cards in a tin container or a more advanced digital recording system, if the system is gathering dust on the shelf, it isn’t adding value to your operation. These producers made the switch from paper records to higher tech systems and found greater value in tracking data digitally.
Wilco van Meijl, South Valley Farms, Rapid City, MB
Wilco and Adrienee van Meijl and family. Photo supplied.
Wilco van Meijl runs South Valley Farms, a mixed operation farm partnership with his wife Adrienne, brother Eric and Eric’s wife Jamie. The partnership bought the first large group of cattle from Wilco and Eric’s parents in 2017.
Wilco participated in a BCRC webinar held January 18, 2023, where he discussed moving from paper records to an electronic database.
The herd continued to expand after Wilco and his brother took over the management in 2021. “We could no longer remember every cow’s history by looking at them.” All four partners worked off farm and couldn’t always be in the same place at the same time. The team moved to electronic records which allowed all the family members to be able to see the records when they needed to.
“The Cards” – recipe cards to hold each cow record. Photo supplied.
South Valley Farms started with paper records with an individual record for each cow. Each cow record was on a recipe card that was kept in a metal tin. “We called them ’the cards’. If any of us dropped the cards, we were in trouble. It was a very manual process, and we wouldn’t review them very often.”
Due to the inefficiencies of this record-keeping system, the operation made a lot of chute decisions. “When you’re at the side of the chute, you’re making that decision while the cow is in the head of the chute. It can become an emotional decision. If a cow was bred, we kept her. We had a cow on our farm that had three c-sections. Our records were all on paper, and she didn’t make it on the culling list. That’s when we said we need to do something different.”
For the open cows, “we used to keep them over. My son’s first 4-H heifer changed that practise when the heifer came back open two years in a row. If a cow was open, we would keep her and give her another shot. Moving to digital records for us opened our eyes to many of these areas we were missing out on.”
The farm began using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to track records and then made the switch to the record keeping software CattleMax®. Digital records have allowed the van Meijls to see lineage and a strong correlation to the dams having open years. It made it clear they had to work on conception rates.
Data like retained heifers were easier to view with digital records. “One cow had seven active daughters in our herd that we could see the lineage for. Once you start playing with lineages you can see more patterns you may not see with paper records.”
The electronic records have helped with heifer retention as well. “Conformation is still a starting point for us. We look at age, keeping the older heifers. When we began looking at our history digitally, we began to notice that if the heifer was born late, it was only a matter of time until she had chronically late calves. We are also keeping heifers born in the first two cycles.”
For Wilco, the benefits of electronic record keeping are clear. “You can see the big picture of your operation and you can compare your progress.” He cites the downside of electronic records as, “time. Getting started is the biggest hurdle for getting into electronic records. Garbage in, garbage out – you get out of it what you put into it.”
Mark Hoimyr, Box H Farm, Gladmar, SK
Mark and Laura Hoimyr. Supplied photo.
Mark Hoimyr and his family operate a 300 cow-calf and direct market grassfed beef operation in southern Saskatchewan.
Mark participated on the BCRC webinar held on January 12, 2022, where he spoke about upgrading their paper record keeping to a smart phone app.
The operation’s data collection has evolved. Starting with a pocketbook calving book, recording cows as they calved, Mark gained more interest in record keeping and data collection. Mark then moved to a spreadsheet. “I liked the ability to be able to manipulate some of the numbers and to summarize some of the information – so we migrated to a spreadsheet. This was while also still using the paper calving book.” Since the farm was multigenerational, Mark was transferring data from the paper calving book to another paper copy for his father and in the evening was recording into the database which was cumbersome, and he was finding data errors. This method was dropped, and the operation started using the Numbers® app on the iPhone. They have been using this system successfully for 10 years.
Mark set up multiple tabs on the spreadsheet for data such as cow records, health treatments, bull records, important dates and the calving season. He made the calving record easy to enter in all the data (he estimates about 30 seconds to enter the data). The spreadsheet has the tag list for the cows, polled/horned status and calving ease and has set defaults like polled unless changed to horned.
https://youtu.be/vXI6eZM-c8Y?t=3031
Watch Mark’s full spreadsheet explanation at 50:31.
Adding formulas to the spreadsheets such as the calf ID cell automatically generated using the dam’s ID, a header has allowed Mark to keep track of cows left to calve, number of live calves and percentage of cows calved. He also used the “sort” function to sort cows that have recently calved. A number scale is used to track calves and cows that caused the most issues during calving as well as teat and udder scores.
The operation started using the information for culling decisions, selecting culls based on udder size and recognizing that poor udders tend to correlate with the issues they observed handling newborn calves. They also used the data for heifer retention, trying to avoid bad temperament and udders.
For Mark, the phone method is quick to use and accessible, usually safe from the washing machine and backed up online on the Cloud. The challenge is that it takes some basic technical skills and the time and energy to learn how to use a new system. Overall, Hoimyr is happy with how it has allowed them to keep track of what they want and not spend a ton of time doing it.
Tyler Fulton – Tyton Farm, Birtle, MB
Tyler, Mae, Evan and Dorelle Fulton. Supplied photo.
Tyler Fulton and his family own and operate Tyton Farm, a 650 head commercial cow-calf and backgrounding operation near Birtle, Manitoba. Tyler participated on the BCRC Webinar held on January 13, 2021, where he discussed the transition from paper records to using Google Sheets®.
Part of the marketing strategy for Tyton Farm involves verification programs including antibiotic free, EU certification, and Verified Beef Production Plus (VBP+). These programs were part of the motivation to improve their record keeping capability.
Initially, the operation was using an Excel spreadsheet to manage records. In 2021, Tyler’s operation started using Google Sheets®. At calving, calves are tagged with a management and CCIA tag, the cows are rated based on teats, udder and feet, calves are weighed and males are castrated. Since Tyler’s father is doing much of the calving data recording, the information is initially recorded on paper and Tyler’s daughter then enters it into the spreadsheet. This process gives data access to everyone including Tyler’s sister, who is off farm, as well as a farm employee.
The electronic based system has allowed the operation to record birth weights and weaning weights which are eventually used to calculate weight gain per day of age from birth to weaning. This shows how consistent the calves are gaining across the herd. A capability with Google Sheets® is the ability to easily generate graphs that can show trends.
https://youtu.be/_-ZJfKPgnPc?t=1855
Watch Tyler’s full Google sheet explanation at 30:55.
When it comes to selecting replacement heifers, Tyler generates a pivot table* and sets minimum criteria such as cows with minimum teat and udder scores of 1, birth weights between 65-95 pounds, calves in first two heat cycles and then sorted on weight gain per day of age. Depending how he wants to rank these traits, the spreadsheet can give a list of best to worst heifers. However, he recognizes that you can’t just go by the numbers. They also look at phenotypic traits. If a heifer looks good physically and her stats are good, she is kept.
*A pivot table is a table of grouped values that combines information from a larger table, so it is easier to review.
For 2022, the operation was working to determine what their top 50 cows are based on fertility, average daily gain, and teat and udder scores. They were also implementing another tool from Google called the Google Form® to use as a calving record generator.
Tips
Find something that works for you. Find a data keeping system that you’ll spend the time to enter the data into.
There’s always going to be a hurdle of time to get the initial data entered.
These six-part online courses walk you through the process of successful record-keeping. Learn how to collect and save data so that it can be analyzed, used to make better decisions and turn information into action.
Content is emailed to you in digestible bites every few days. E-mail lessons will provide a brief overview with links to supporting information.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
A Quarter-Century of Progress with Extended Grazing 🎙️
Putting cattle on extended grazing systems has paid off handsomely for Canadian ranchers over the past quarter-century – mostly by drastically reducing feeding costs, but also in helping the environment.
Trevor Atchison, Poplarview Stock Farm
“Any time you can graze a blade of grass that you didn’t have to cut, bale, harvest or store, it’s cheaper,” says Trevor Atchison. “Things have been bad enough in the cow-calf sector lately – without what we’ve been implementing over the years, things would be a lot tougher for us having to spend on expensive fuel and equipment.”
Atchison’s Poplarview Stock Farm calves 750 cows a year, backgrounds the calves over the winter and runs the heifers on grass. When conditions are right, he buys in 250 to 350 feeders, usually heifers. Atchison owns 5,500 acres of land with 3,000 in pasture and rents 8,000 acres with half in pasture. The ranch is in southwest Manitoba, east of Pipestone, and has been in the family for 120 years.
Atchison started taking over the reins of the business a couple of years after graduating high school in 1993 when his dad got busy with several different boards. Since then, he’s been diligent in keeping up with developments through seminars, trade shows and other learning opportunities.
Extended grazing means keeping cattle out of pens and corrals as long as possible. Methods include swath grazing, in which grain crops like oats, barley or triticale are swathed in the green stage and left in the field for the cattle. In bale grazing, bales of hay are placed in the pasture or hayfield instead of feeding in barns or yards. Bales are rationed to the cows by using electric fencing and wastage can be reduced by moving the fences every two to five days. Stockpiled perennial forages and crop residues can also be used in extended grazing systems.
Bale grazing at Poplarview Stock Farm, photo provided by Trevor Atchison
The economic advantages over conventional drylot systems are many, including reduced costs for labour, equipment and transportation, planting, harvest and storage, buildings and managing manure. The manure aspect is actually an environmental boon in extended grazing systems because it naturally restores nutrients back to the soil.
Drawbacks can include access to water, variable winter weather and snow that prevent the cattle from getting to the feed, shelter requirements, needing a backup for when feed is not available and wildlife damage to the feed.
Statistics Canada’s 2021 agricultural census had 30,302 Canadian farms using in-field winter grazing or feeding. That’s 41 per cent of all farms reporting cattle, up from 35.4 per cent in the 2016 census.
More Canadian producers are using extended grazing because they have seen how well it works in real time and because of the 25 years of research that has demonstrated how this practice is practical, economical and environmentally responsible.
Kathy Larson, University of Saskatchewan
Crunching the numbers
“By far the biggest cost to producers is winter feeding, especially in cow-calf production,” says Kathy Larson, professional research associate at the University of Saskatchewan, who is also involved with the Canadian Cow-Calf Cost of Production Network.
In a study conducted by the Western Beef Development Centre between 2001 and 2012, winter feeding accounted for 27 to 34 per cent of overall costs, which included labour, veterinary and medicine, transportation and a number of other inputs.
“Extended grazing is beneficial to the animal and to the pocketbook,” she says, adding that swath grazing is one of the lowest-cost feeding methods to over-winter cows yet it’s not the most common method used by producers.
The economic advantages of extended grazing have been researched and well-documented for decades. A study published in 1993 showed that stockpiled grazing fescue was 52 per cent cheaper than alfalfa cubes and silage in drylot. In 2004, Duane McCartney and his research team at Lacombe (see below) found that swath grazing was $70 per cow cheaper over 100 days than drylot and used 38 per cent less labour. And environmentally, a 1997 study showed that pasture growth doubled after just one year of bale grazing.
Swath grazing photo by Tamara Carter
Larson had just launched a survey in January 2023 to update knowledge on how producers use swath grazing as well as why some producers prefer not to swath graze or have even stopped using the method.
Extended grazing in Canada has been used by some producers for decades and research has continued to show its worth.
History
Duane McCartney, beef and forage researcher
In 1996, researcher Duane McCartney moved to Lacombe, Alberta, when the beef research program in which he had been working for more than 20 years at Melfort, Saskatchewan, was closed by the federal government.
There, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, he and the research team had good success with crested wheatgrass – normally grown much farther south than Melfort – for early spring and late fall grazing. In summer, the cattle would be turned out on brome-alfalfa pastures.
“The longer we could keep them (the cattle) grazing, the better off everybody was,” he says.
They then moved on to Italian rye grass, which would be underseeded to oats or barley which would be cut and used for silage. The rye grass would then grow and be used for late fall grazing.
“We could graze cattle right up to and into snow,” he says, adding that during the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, he heard about swath grazing being used by producers in Alberta.
At Melfort, they successfully used swath grazing with oats and barley for a number of years.
In the late 1990s, the Western Forage Beef Group was formed at Lacombe with extension people from the province and federal research scientists. Funding from the Canada-Alberta Beef Development Fund enabled the researchers to undertake a large research program on swath grazing.
“The people at Lacombe have been swath grazing ever since,” he says.
While barley and oats are the most common grains for swath grazing, there has been good success with triticale and corn, as well.
Thirty years ago, calves at Poplarview were born in March and weaned in October. Calves were marketed immediately and heifers were kept as well as some bulls. Cows would go back out grazing after weaning. In those days, most ranchers brought their animals in and started feeding after weaning.
Trevor Atchison & family, Poplarview Stock Farm
“As long as the tractor could get around the pasture, we left them out,” Atchison says.
When Trevor took over, rotational grazing was being heavily promoted and there was lots of information available.
“In the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, there was a big transition from grain land back to grass,” he says, which prompted a lot of experimentation in grazing. “I spent a lot of time travelling, gathering information, talking to people and trying to get it right,” he says.
Today, Atchison’s cattle stay out on pasture for the entire year, except for when they are brought in for processing, including pregnancy checks, body condition scoring and vaccinations.
Based on the body condition score and the age of the animal, he splits the herd into two groups – the ones that need extra nutrition and the ones that are doing fine. He uses a combination of swath and bale grazing and, in the past five years, started feeding silage. Calving now starts in May.
The cattle are moved every other day in rotational grazing, which provides an opportunity to do health checks. Water sources include snow, aquifer fed dugouts, wells and troughs, and more than 12 miles of pipes. To prevent freezing, he allows water to trickle out of the pipes all the time.
Aerial view of bale grazing and feeding silage in the field at Poplarview Stock Farm, photo provided by Trevor Atchison
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Calf 911 - How to Intervene with a Difficult Calving ▶️🎙️
Calving cows out is a huge responsibility with many factors coming together to ensure a healthy calf hits the ground. A cow in ideal body condition, good breeding and genetics, and a clean environment are instrumental in a healthy calf being born.
But what happens when something doesn’t go as planned? What if a calf comes backwards or a leg is turned back? Producers need to be prepared to assist a cow having a difficult birth (dystocia), including the knowledge of how and when to help. This video walks producers through the critical steps of assessing and managing difficult calvings.
https://youtu.be/Yh6o2Fu4SqE
Take the time to prepare.
Clean the cow and work area of any manure or other debris that could be introduced into the reproductive tract.
Wash the cow and your hands: Cleanliness (00:09) is an important step that is often overlooked despite evidence that using poor hygiene when palpating animals can lead to long term reproductive issues and delays in breed back intervals.
Wear gloves: Wearing palpation gloves will reduce risk of contracting zoonotic diseases (transmitted from animals to humans) such as Q fever and leptospirosis.
Use lubrication: Even the hair on a bare arm is enough to tear the delicate tissues of the birth canal. Proper lubrication will ensure that uterine tears and abrasions won’t lead to further complications and problems rebreeding.
Common Calving Supplies: Hover on the pins in the image below for descriptions.
Check the cervix.
Palpate the cervix: For a calf to be delivered vaginally, the cow’s cervix must be open or “dilated.” (00:47) If the palpator is finding it difficult to reach the calf or theirhand is running into a blind sac, it is likely that the cow has not properly dilated.
If the cow’s cervix is not open, the calf is not ready to be born.
Determine the status of the calf.
Decide if there is room for the calf to be delivered: Run a hand around the circumference of the calf between the calf and the cow’s pelvis. (1:21)
If your hand fits between the calf and the cow, then she likely has enough room to deliver the calf with assistance. If you are unable to fit a hand in that space, veterinary assistance is recommended.
Check if thecalf is alive: To determine the calf’s viability, place a finger in its mouth for a suck reflex or tongue flick. The eyes can be checked for a blink, and in-between the toes can be pinched to check for a response.
Assess an abnormal presentation: It can often be difficult to determine if the legs coming first are front limbs or hind limbs. One simple trick to determine this is to bend the joints of the lower leg. If the joints are both bending in the same direction, they belong to the forelimb. If they bend in opposite directions, they belong to the hind limb. (1:41)
Normal Presentations:
A normal presentation for a calf to be delivered is “anterior” or forward facing, with a head and two front feet coming first.
A normal “posterior” or backwards calf comes with two hind feet and a tail first.
When dealing with a head back position, the head can be slowly brought into position by gently grasping the muzzle, the ear or the lower jaw.
Head back: Calves that have their head pointed backwards will need to be gently pushed back into the uterus by putting pressure on the calf’s chest while the cow is at rest. (2:22)
Once it is pushed further back and the producer has more room to work within the cow, the head can be adjusted and brought up to the pelvic inlet. This can be done bygrasping the mouth with one hand, or placing your thumb and middle finger in the eye sockets. Care must be taken to never pull hard on the lower jaw as it can easily be fractured or injured.
Alternatively, a calving snare can be very helpful to help secure a calf’s head. The calving snare can be placed around the poll, behind the calf’s ears, and then secured in the mouth of the calf. The head can be deflected up and around into proper positioning, always being careful to protect the muzzle of the calf with your hand to protect the soft tissues of the cow from the sharp incisor teeth of the calf.
Once the head is in proper position, traction is placed on the legs to deliver the calf. It is important to note that often when a calf presents with a head back, it is due to a lack of room for the calf to advance into the pelvis. Care must be taken to ensure that the calf is not too large to be delivered vaginally.
Leg back: When correcting a retained limb, or a “leg back,” the same method of pushing the calf back into the cow to create more room is applied. The producer can work their way down the leg until the foot is reached, then cup the foot to protect the uterus from damage from the hoof capsule. Once the foot is secured, bend all the leg joints, and move up toward the spine and forward toward the cervix. (3:13)
The Rule of Three:
An attempt to pull a calf must ONLY be made once the calf presents with THREE requirements:
One head plus two front feet
One tail plus two hind feet
Place calving chains in a double half hitch over the top of the toes.
Apply calving chains.
Use a double half hitch: Unfortunately, many calves suffer broken legs due to improperly placed calving chains. The proper placement and use of the double half hitch method is outlined in the video ensuring that pressure is placed evenly on the legs and helping to direct the toes downward with each pull, ensuring the toes stay far away from the delicate tissues of its mother. (3:51)
Pull the calf.
Work with the cow:Only pull or apply pressure when the cow is having a contraction or “pushing.” Never pull when she is at rest.
Use a seesaw method:Thisis a technique which applies pressure on alternating legs as the calf advances into the birth canal. This allows for the widest part of the calf to enter the pelvis one shoulder at a time, creating more space. (4:35)
Apply pressure in an arc: For a forward-facing calf, pressure should always be applied in the shape of an arc as the calf moves through the birth canal. Begin by applying force in an upward motion as the front feet and head are advanced, then the chest is delivered by pulling straight back, and finally the pelvis and hind limbs can be pulled in a downward fashion to allow gravity to aid in the delivery. (5:03)
Rotate the pelvis: If the pelvis of the calf is binding in the cow’s pelvis, it can be manually rotated to 45 degrees, shifting the hip angle and preventing hip lock.
Cross the hind limbs: In the case of a backwards calf, it is helpful to cross the hind limbs when pulling. This will cause the calf’s hips to rotate preventing hip lock.
If a cow requires assistance during calving it is vital that producers understand the proper methods to intervene. Just as important is knowing when to call for assistance.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Ready or Not, Calving is Coming -- Plan Ahead for a Streamlined Calving Season 🎙️
There are many aspects of a producer’s day-to-day life that are out of their control. The weather, including precipitation, winds and plummeting temperatures, can test the best-made plans in the most organized of operations.
Producers all hope for a smooth calving season with predictable weather conditions and adequate feed inventories, but will sleep easier knowing that they have a plan if things go in a different direction. Long before the first calf hits the ground, there is much that can be done to decrease the stress and workload during a busy season. Focusing on four main aspects of planning can ensure a safe and successful calving season.
Photo courtesy of Sherri Grant
1. Prevent disease before it starts by having a biosecurity plan.
Avoid comingling any new cattle with pregnant cows and implement strict quarantine times for animals coming back to the main herd.
Separate classes of cattle into different areas so you can manage risk based on what group is most susceptible to disease. Naïve animals such as first calf heifers and new calves should be kept in the highest risk category. Consider implementing a calving strategy to help minimize calfhood disease.
Print off a Google map of your calving areas so you can strategically plan how to move through groups of cattle in your day-to-day chores to prevent the spread of contaminants to high-risk animals.
Eliminate possible contaminants such as old feed piles, manure and deadstock. Think ahead to spring melt and be prepared for wet areas and how drainage can lead to standing stagnant water and disease reservoirs. Always have adequate dry bedding available when it is not possible to move cattle to clean and dry areas.
Clean your equipment. Ensure that the loader tractor you used to spread manure in the fall has been properly cleaned and disinfected before using it to bed new calves.
Create areas on your farm specifically for sick animals. Ensure those animals do not share water or have cross-fence contact with healthy animals. Never place sick animals in the same area as naïve animals, such as first-calf heifers.
2. Use your feed wisely and allocate according to animals’ nutritional requirements.
Evaluate the body condition score of your herd and decide if changes need to be made in order to raise or lower the score.
Test your feed and use the results. Ensure that you are feeding the appropriate ration as the cow herd enters the production stage with highest nutritional requirements.
Review your feed budget. Are you still on track with your fall feeding plan? Measure your inventory, calculate your feed use and make sure you have enough minerals or supplements to get you through the busy season.
Consider access to your feed supply. As the snow piles up or the frost comes out of the ground are you able to easily access all feed sources?
3. Ensure your herd health management is on point; healthy cows make healthy calves.
Make certain your cows are properly vaccinated to ensure quality colostrum.
Discuss your calving plan with your veterinarian. This will ensure that your Veterinary-Client Patient Relationship (VCPR) is current so you can access timely advice and medications if problems arise.
Stock your farm’s medicine supply with the appropriate medications in case of illness and develop protocols on how and when to use them.
Clean your calving supplies, keep them in good working order and readily available.
Prepare calving sites and plan for adverse weather events. This includes being able to access handling facilities in case of an emergency. Always have a plan or a readily accessible trailer in case you need to haul an animal to the veterinarian.
In simple terms, a VCPR means that your veterinarian understands your operation, your management practices, your herd and common health issues well enough to provide meaningful advice and oversight.
Decide what data you would like to capture and what you plan to do with it.
Update your protocols including any prescriptions that may be needed.
Take the opportunity to train any staff or family members who may not be fully up to date on the record keeping process. Explain any new systems and stress the importance of consistent records.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
The Sandhills Strategy -- Moving Pregnant Cows to Fresh Ground and Leaving Pairs Behind Can Limit Calf Sickness 🎙️
There are many different methods of calving cows and there is no single perfect system.
For some producers, adopting the Sandhills Calving System has improved herd health and time management at a busy time of year. Named by a University of Nebraska professor who developed the idea, some refer to it as “leave behind calving,” the “drop-back method” or “strategic calving management.” The Sandhills System involves moving pregnant cows on to different “clean” ground while leaving freshly calved pairs in the field they were born in. This method helps minimize direct contact between older calves and younger calves and reduces the transfer of viruses and the build-up of disease-causing pathogens in the calving area. Regardless of what producers call it, moving pregnant cows to calve on clean ground and leaving freshly calved pairs remaining in their pasture is a practical way to improve health and reduce scours at calving.
During the 2021 Canadian Beef Industry Conference (CBIC) Bov-Innovation session, Dr. Elizabeth Homerosky, DVM, and Dr. Tommy Ware, DVM, both with Veterinary Agri-Health Services, discussed how they work with clients to map out different calving scenarios using common technologies like Google Earth. Seeing a situation from a bird’s eye view can help to highlight gaps and challenges in disease transmission specific to individual farms. Here’s a video clip from this session:
https://youtu.be/2wtLOarOL3M
Whether producers are working with a limited land base and resources, or they can fully implement the Sandhills Calving System, the following profiles include many practical tips and takeaways.
A New Calving Concept for a Long-Time Ranch
John Smith and Laura Laing operate the Plateau Cattle Company near Nanton, AB. They recently adopted the Sandhills Calving System on their ranch. Photo credit Laura Laing.
John Smith, who ranches west of Nanton, Alberta, tried the Sandhills System for the first time during the 2022 calving season, based on the advice of his vet clinic, Veterinary Agri-Health Services (VAHS).
At one time, the commercial Angus-based cow-calf operation calved in late February. “That can be pretty challenging so we kept dropping calving dates back and adapted some different practices,” Smith explains, saying they now use April 1 as a target start date and may consider moving it back later.
Up until this year, Smith says they used to “pair out” as cows calved, moving pairs to clean ground. After talking with VAHS, they decided to try the Sandhills method to reduce sickness in calves, and they moved his expectant females to fresh pastures in three different moves.
“I liked it. We’ll do it again,” says John. Like any new practice, he says there was a learning curve to determine how to manage pastures and make the best use of their facilities, but the reduction in sickness and treatment rates made it worthwhile.
“We had no scours, I had half or a third of a bottle of medicine from the year before and still have it,” he says. This was a much different outcome than what Smith experienced a couple of years prior when extremely wet weather during calving prompted a severe scours outbreak.
Smith kept his first-calvers together in a separate 60-acre field for calving. He maintains a strict 25-day breeding season to ensure calves arrive in a narrow window.
For the first big move sorting through soon-to-be moms, they had four riders. “We moved 300 cows and 100 stayed behind,” he says. Once the pregnant cows understood which pasture they were being herded to, John says they were eager to go.
“It happened fast; it only took an hour,” he says, but adds that he did have to take a bit of additional time the next day to clean up stragglers.
“It’s all about the health of the calves, about reducing death loss,” John says. “It saves time, too. There is a lot going on; it’s about making things easier.”
Smith relies on herd management software to help him identify pairs. He pastures cows with steer calves separately from cows with heifer calves. Photo credit Sharon Wall.
Consolidating all the pairs into one group took some planning. “We had three fields with quite a few pairs, actually four counting heifers,” Smith explains. “It felt like there were fields of cattle everywhere,” he says, but added there is an optimum timeframe to mix groups of cattle without having an adverse outcome, health-wise. They combined herds of cow-calf pairs during processing in May.
John tags his calves at birth, then at spring processing, cows and calves are vaccinated. “We don’t have a conventional branding, there’s no brand, but we do have pretty good management software,” he says, adding they use their record-keeping program to identify and sort individual animals through the chute as they process them in May.
John is looking ahead to future calving seasons, knowing that each year has its own unique circumstances and improvements will be made as needed. “I’m looking forward to year five or year seven in my rotation,” he says. “Get water set up properly, have a little more shelter, have the land set up, and make it a little handier.”
TOP TIPS
Arrange your rotation strategically so that you are in a user-friendly field when you expect the most calves. “I tried to time it so that we were in the ‘calving field’ when weather was going to be bad or when I knew I’d get my max amount of births,” John explains. “It’s a bunch of cows, statistically enough can go wrong that you might need to be reasonably close to facilities.”
Even if you aren’t set up to change your calving method, consider moving infrastructure to avoid the build-up of disease-causing pathogens. “We have a lot of portable windbreak and calf huts, and move them around more often, that is probably improving health as well.”
Drop-back Calving on a Large Scale
Kelsey and John Beasley operate Integrity Ranching near Youngstown, Alberta. These livestock producers are continually evolving and currently run a yearling and sheep operation. At one time, they calved 900 cows using the Sandhills Calving System. “We’ve always been learning, that was why we did the drop-back calving,” says Kelsey.
“We were running a cow-calf and yearling place at Boggy Creek, in Manitoba,” she says, and adds the climate was the biggest challenge. “It was colder and there were longer winters.” Scours management was a big concern. After reading about the Sandhills method, they talked it over with their farming family members and decided to implement it.
Beasley says planning moves along with pasture rotations is important to ensure the nutritional needs of the pregnant cows are met. Photo courtesy of Kelsey Beasley.
“We were shifting to a later calving on grass in May and June versus the end of April,” she says. They grouped the herd into replacement heifers with second-calvers and then the main cow herd.
“The success was really in the planning out of the grazing system,” she explains. They were incorporating bale grazing and the cows came out of winter pastures with stockpiled grass before transitioning to calving. “The timing of year is huge, you have to have a good forage supply that’s matched to the requirements of the animals,” she says.
The Sandhills System went hand-in-hand with their grazing management, says Beasley. Photo courtesy of Kelsey Beasley.
“Once we had a good-sized group of calves on the ground, maybe 150 or 200, we would go out early at daylight, ride through, and when those calves got up to suck, we just moved all the ‘uncalved’ cows out into the next field,” Beasley explains.
Kelsey found that there were few risks but plenty of benefits to drop-back calving. “Disease load-wise, you have those neonates on clean ground,” she says and adds that the herd had much better health with no issue of scours.
“I would say you also got to be pretty handy with stockmanship,” says Kelsey. “You’re not fighting with those young pairs, you can give that cow time to just be a cow.”
TOP TIPS
Timing and stockmanship are key when moving pregnant cows on. “You will have your best success moving cattle as close to daybreak as possible compared to if you wait until mid-day or afternoon,” says Kelsey. “You want to be ready to move first thing in the morning when the calves get up for their first suck, the pairs will naturally be situated and easier to leave back at this time.”
“If you missed some cows, don’t sweat it.” Beasley says you can almost expect to have a couple of cows that get left behind, especially if they aren’t used to the system yet. “Check that group first, snag your opportunity for the ones you missed,” she says. “Just be cool about it, take it easy, gather them up and move them.”
Rather than combining all the pairs, you can streamline spring processing by working the separate groups of cow-calf pairs. “At the end of calving, we had all these groups sorted by age and also had all the dries sorted off,” Beasley says. “It was so efficient in time and saved us in labour,” she says, adding that when it came time to brand the calves, each separate group was the same age.
Implementing the Sandhills System in the Sandhills of Saskatchewan
Erin McKnight and her husband Steve raise commercial cattle in southern Saskatchewan. A portion of their ranch is comprised of tame grass pastures and farm fields that they use to grow greenfeed, but the majority of their operation is rough sandy rangeland.
In the past, they used to calve cows out in large, rugged sandhill pastures but that presented a few challenges. “In the Sandhills, it’s really tough to see what’s going on,” Erin explains. “On this ranch, there’s always been a pilot,” she explains, and Steve often relies on his plane to help determine what’s happening on the land.
Over time, they shifted toward calving on flatter, smaller fields. “We calve all our pairs in the spring in April and May, then we push them out to grass in the sandhills after they’ve been worked in the spring,” says Erin.
After deciding they preferred working fewer smaller bunches of calves at spring processing rather than having a single large round-up, they started pushing pregnant cows to different fields, leaving pairs behind.
On McKnight’s operation, they run their herd in very large, rugged fields in the summer and fall but use smaller, smoother pastures during calving season. Photo courtesy of Erin McKnight at instagram.com/erinmcknight.
“We just stumbled on that,” says Erin. “It was naturally what we started doing and it was a couple years after we started doing it that we both learned that this is studied and an actual system,” she explains. “Ironically, it is called the Sandhills System.”
They start with a group of several hundred pregnant cows in the beginning and with each move, the group gets smaller and smaller. “We let pregnant mamas move off and the cows that had babies would linger back,” she describes. “It’s never a perfect split,” she notes but adds that they take care to move pregnant cows out of the pairs at processing time to ensure their future offspring get vaccinated in the next bunch.
The health of newborn calves and the time savings has made this method work for the past eight calving seasons. “We can work those bigger calves sooner and it helps us get those cows out to summer pasture quicker. It works for us out here. It works for our situation.”
TOP TIPS
Find a system that works for you to streamline labour and time. “We used to ride in the giant Sandhills fields and spend hours and hours in the saddle,” says Erin. The Sandhills System has enabled the McKnights to work groups of same-age calves effectively. They still log plenty of miles on horseback but in a different way. “We work them in smaller groups, not just one big branding, where there is too much stress and too much confusion,” she says.
Provide natural or man-made shelter for calving cows. “We need to provide cover for our animals all year long but especially during calving season,” says Erin. She adds that in their situation, there’s a balance to strike where they want to make use of pastures with natural protection such as brush and trees, but avoid using pastures for calving where the terrain is too rough.
Modify Management to Reduce Contamination at Calving
Dr. Lance Males, a large animal veterinarian at Temiskaming Veterinary Services in New Liskeard, Ontario, says that when space is limited, clean bedding is the key. “Have enough bedding that calves don’t have access to a ‘manure meal,’” he says. “Udders must be clean and dry.”
Males refers to the first three weeks of calving season as the “honeymoon” period, where producers may not experience a lot of scours. During this period, disease-causing agents are still multiplying in the guts of young calves before they build up in the environment, ready to infect others. Reducing stock density and moving the cow herd to clean ground on a regular basis can prolong the honeymoon phase.
“Solution is the dilution to pollution,” says Dr. Males, and for producers lacking space to adopt a Sandhills Calving System, he says providing adequate, clean bedding is the key.
“The Sandhills calving scheme is great, but you may need to modify the concept if the farm only has one calving area,” Dr. Males explains. In situations where winter calving herds have limited space and use a single common handling area for calving cows, producers may opt to move pairs to different yards or pens.
One client he worked with would calve cows in freshly bedded pens. “All the calves older than a day were moved with their dams to a nearby yard to be fed,” he explains. “This left the producer with a couple of yards [or pens] of calves outside, with each yard containing calves that were born within a week of each other,” he says. “Once the youngest calves in a group hit three weeks of age, they could be combined with older groups and moved to a larger nearby bush lot.”
If producers have the space and option to utilize summer calving, Males says it can be an effective way to reduce scours and other sicknesses, as well as decrease labour. “With lots of space, newborn calves experience a reduced disease challenge and subsequently lower treatment rates,” he says. “There is less risk of freezing, lower bedding requirements, calves tend to be born a bit lighter, so fewer calving difficulties,” he concludes.
TOP TIPS
If a farm is going to the work of separating calves in their pens by birth week, they need to avoid fence line contact between young and older calves. “You need a few metres of physical separation or else the results will be disappointing,” Males suggests.
The greater the age range between the youngest calf and the oldest calf, the cleaner the yards or pens need to be. “Assume the older calves are shedding significant numbers of pathogens, so additional straw and a large area can reduce the likelihood of a newborn calf being exposed to it.”
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Five Management Tips To Make a Big Impact in Small Herds 🎙️
There are many producers with small herds across Canada. In fact, in 2021 31% of farms with cattle reported having 32 head or less and 22% have between 33 and 72. But what specifically defines a “small herd?”
A small herd likely means something different depending on the region, available resources and how producers choose to define their operation. Commonalities across most small herds include being family-owned and operated with fewer than 30 head of cattle, no employees on the farm or limited part-time help with the bulk of income coming from off-farm employment. A small herd may be a well-established operation or perhaps a new venture beginning to build the herd.
Being a smaller operator can pose challenges when managing a beef herd. Time is often limited and, as with most operations, the purse strings can be tight. Because of this, getting the most bang for your buck is important.
In 2021, 53% of farms with cattle in Canada reported having 72 head or less.
Here are five management tips that can make a big impact on your bottom line:
Tip #1:Keep records. Knowing your starting point is essential before determining where you want to go.
Keeping records to make future decisions and set clear achievable goals is extremely valuable. When you have a smaller herd, it’s especially important that every animal pulls their weight and is an asset. Identifying cows that are either aggressive, poor mothers or are not helping to meet your production goals should be identified so they can be culled. As a new or small herd producer, keeping detailed records at calving such as maternal behaviour, conformation abnormalities and dystocia incidences can help to make better culling decisions and reduce the risk of undesirable genetics proliferating through your herd. Keeping records on temperament during calving (and other times that require handling), calving ease and calf performance allows you to pick out the shining stars from the problem animals and allows you to make informed culling decisions to benefit the future herd.
“Grass management and handling skills are important,” Mark says. But he emphasizes keeping good financial and economic records give you “the roadmap to see where your time and attention should be directed. I would expect this would be doubly important for smaller scale herds.”
Tip #2: Develop a grazing plan. Know what you have and use it to maximize future potential.
When grazing cattle, there are many factors to consider in order to utilize the land to its full potential year after year. It is important to understand the carrying capacity of your field – how many animals can be sustained on that area for how long? Knowing how much forage you have available can prevent overgrazing and optimize feed utilization. Having this information allows you to better design a grazing plan to get the most out of your pastures for the health of the herd and forage stand. Strategies like temporary fencing allow you to section your field and graze the animals over a designated area without having to invest in a permanent fence.
Click chart to enlarge.
Pasture 101 covers a wide range of information and practical tools to consider when thinking about your grazing goals. When it comes to grazing management, know what you have and make a plan.
“Good [grazing] management is equal to tripling your actual land base. Efficient genetics suited to your environment is another. Keep overhead to an absolute minimum (buying in feed is not as expensive as it seems on the surface).”
“Better grass/grazing management, well built/designed livestock handling yards and buy the best breeding stock you can afford. the rest you can hire out for most things.”
Photo credit Beef Farmers of Ontario
Tip #3: Focus on cattle handling. Your time is valuable and your safety is non-negotiable.
Many farmers enjoy working cattle, but others (and their families) may find this is when tensions are most high. Keeping everyone cool, calm and collected when handling cattle not only reduces the stress on your cattle, but also reduces stress for everyone on the job. When cattle are stressed, they release more stress hormones which can mask underlying issues. Good handling practices improve animal health and welfare. Reducing stress results in calmer animals, which can allow producers to be better able to properly access and assess cattle.
Practical Tips – Staying quiet can be the biggest tool to reduce the stress on cattle. And while it can be a large overhead cost to get a good handling system in place, many producers have seen major benefits to having proper handling facilities. These changes don’t happen overnight but the benefits to keeping you, your family and your animals calm and safe is worth the investment.
“We were never sorry we put in a working tub and working chute. It seemed like a lot of cash but as my dad told me, ‘It’s cheaper than a week in the hospital’.”
Tip #4: Define the calving season. Establishing a clear calving period can benefit both your management and bottom line.
https://youtu.be/QU-p_FPpNv8
A cow should have a calf every year. While that is a straightforward and simple statement, cattle producers know it takes effort, planning and management to make this happen. One way to achieve this goal is to establish well-defined breeding and calving seasons. For example, defining your calving period to a controlled 60–90-day period has been shown to improve uniformity of your cattle for marketing purposes, allows your breeding herd adequate time to recover before re-breeding, reduces labour, improves weaning weights and allows you to time vaccinations more accurately. A more uniform calf crop also provides the opportunity to sell calves through calf club sales to market larger, more appealing groups of calves to feeders.
There may be situations where marketing strategies lend themselves to a calving season that differs in timing and length. Those management decisions need to be evaluated and determined by each individual producer in a way that suits the operation’s goals and marketing plan.
Tip #5: Invest in building a team. Farming does not have to be a one-person show.
Extension specialists, nutritionists, vets, accountants or farm business specialists, among other professionals in your area can serve as invaluable resources to help you succeed. Investing time into these relationships allows these individuals to know your herd, understand your needs and help you through challenges.
Pictured from left: Dr. Elizabeth Homerosky, Dr. Eugene Janzen, Alberta rancher Stephen Hughes and Dr. Tommy Ware
For example, building a relationship with your local veterinarian creates the foundation for a Veterinary-Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR). Having a vet who knows you and your goals as well as your specific herd and environment helps them to better diagnose potential issues, develop a specific treatment management plan and vaccination program that is tailored to you, your farm and your animals.
Further, work with nutritionists who understand regional nutrition deficiencies and can help you balance a diet. Extension specialists or local forage and grassland associations can help highlight common challenges for your region. Farm business specialists can look at the books and potential identify opportunities to improve your bottom line you may have not considered before. Even looking to neighbours and other producers, can help streamline your management and provide a sounding board for ideas. Developing these relationships facilitates a team dynamic to support you when questions arise and to help identify key opportunities.
Canadian beef producers have a variety of different suggestions for making small herds work effectively. Here are a few ideas shared with @beefresearch via Twitter:
Many producers chimed in with tips on investing in capital infrastructure compared to hiring things out. Ontario producer Barry Potter, @PotterBarry, says, “We outsource all our equipment work. I am blessed to have farms close by that do it for me as a revenue source for them.”
Saskatchewan producer Keith Guy, @7barlivestock, shared a tip for small and large herds alike. “Don’t have to own all the equipment. Some jobs can be hired out effectively. Ie. Trucking and new fence building are the two easiest to hire out. That goes for larger ranches too.”
VBP+ certified producer Barb Kristjansson, @bkristjansson1, shared some ideas on Twitter: “The economics of a smaller herd (50-60) don’t allow for new equipment. 40 series tractor and 15-year-old haybine, 535 baler. Works great when maintained.” She also adds that building relationships is helpful. “Land base is usually less as well, so a good relationship with someone that has hay to sell and/or straw to bale is priceless. Don’t shop around for cheapest every year, establish a relationship and maintain it.” Marketing smaller lots can be a challenge or opportunity. “Our cattle are marketed locally at presort sales to take advantage of large groups. Hauling is done by ourselves, pastures and sale barn are close.”
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
With winter rolling in across the Prairies and parts of Eastern Canada, you may be turning to extended grazing to help keep cattle out on pasture longer. Grazing standing corn has many benefits, including being a high-energy forage, but can also pose animal health risks if not managed properly.
Here are some tips to help you successfully manage standing corn for grazing.
Photo from Nova Scotia beef producers Dean and Catherine Manning
EASE CATTLE INTO GRAZING CORN
If this is the first-time grazing corn, it may take some time for cattle to realize what they are supposed to do with the tall stalks. It is a good idea to slowly transition cattle from pasture to fall or winter corn grazing. Regardless of how familiar they are with grazing, the rumen takes time to adapt to the new feed source. One way to do this is to provide access to only a couple days’ worth of feed and also supply cattle with an alternative feed source such as a bale of hay to help them through the transition period.
LIMIT COWS TO 3-4 DAYS OF FEED
Inevitably, when cattle are turned out, they will eat the best (most palatable) parts of the plant first, which is the cob. If cows are allowed access too much corn, there can be problems with rumen acidosis. Research conducted at the Western Beef Development Centre in Saskatchewan suggests limiting cattle to three to four days’ worth of feed and providing a fibre source (low-quality hay or straw) to help mitigate the risk of acidosis.
Strip grazing using electric fence provides a more uniform nutrient intake, reducing the risk of acidosis caused by cattle only eating high energy cobs, and utilization per acre is improved. This also reduces trampling and wastage.
PROTECT CATTLE FROM THE ELEMENTS
In years of heavy snowfall, cattle may have better access to standing corn compared to swathed crops under snow. Observations have also shown standing corn providing protection from the wind during inclement weather. Cattle can graze through the winter as long as they have access to water or loose snow and shelter.
FEED TEST, FEED TEST, FEED TEST
In most cases corn exceeds the nutrient requirements of cattle in the first two trimesters of pregnancy, but it is still important to feed test to determine if the cows’ requirements will be met by grazing corn alone or if additional supplementation (protein) should be provided. Testing corn for mycotoxins is also recommended. Since corn is grazed standing, it is recommended to do a feed and mycotoxin test a couple weeks before grazing so that it is a close representation of what the cattle will actually be grazing. Visit the BCRC’s Feed Quality, Testing & Analysis for Beef Cattle webpage for more information.
Read more about Eastern beef producers’ experience with corn grazing:
1. When using electric fence, rather than drill holes in frozen ground for posts, break the cobs off a corn stalk and slide a length of PVC pipe over top of the stalk, tying the wire to that.
2. Strategically plan paddocks so the herd can graze from the inside of the field outward and use the corn as a natural windbreak.
HAVE A PLAN B
Even with the best plans in place weather conditions such as too much snow, lack of frost or even too much rain can put an end to corn grazing. Make sure you have an alternative winter feed in case you are forced to pull cows from the corn early.
Thinking about next year?
pLAN aHEAD
Photo from Saskatchewan beef producer Ryan Beierbach
Select an early-maturing variety that will match the Corn Heat Units (CHU) rating for your area to increase the chance of a high-yielding, high-quality corn crop.
Planting an early-maturing, silage-type corn variety for use in late-season grazing has great potential since the productivity is very high and the taller plant allows cattle to harvest the stand when the snow gets deep.
PLANT FOR SUCCESS
Choosing the right variety of corn is very important to ensure cattle don’t experience grain overload or acidosis. Learn more from this producer.
Read 10 Corn Planting Tips, which includes an overview of site and variety selection, seeding equipment, weed control and fertility.
Grazing corn can be seeded with an air seeder, air drill, row planter or conventional hoe drill. From Manitoba to British Columbia, the recommended seeding depth is 1.5-2 inches deep, preferably into moisture, at a soil temperature of at least 10 degrees Celsius. From Ontario to Prince Edward Island, the recommended seeding depth ranges from 1.5-3 inches deep. Row spacing of 30 inches is recommended.
LEARN MORE
For more tips on grazing corn plus an excellent overview of considerations when using extended grazing systems, view the BCRC webinar, Refining Corn Grazing Recommendations, presented by Dr. Bart Lardner. Highlights include understanding Corn Heat Units (22:48), agronomics of growing corn (23:55), grazing management (30:35) and research results (33:00).
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Strategies for Fall and Winter Grazing: Eastern Canadian Perspectives 🎙️
Editor’s note: To support current extension initiatives and provide enhanced resources, the Beef Cattle Research Council has increased collaboration and delivery of extension content that reflects the production practices and needs of Eastern Canadian beef producers. This post is part of an ongoing series of content delivery. Suggestions, ideas and comments are always welcome.
Photo provided by Québec beef producers Jacob Morin and Rosemarie Allen
As we move into late summer, planning ahead for the coming fall and winter months is always time well spent, especially when considering the nutritional needs of the beef herd. Winter feeding can be costly and labour-intensive work.
Extending the grazing season is one way to minimize reliance on stored feeds and reduce yardage costs and labour. Depending on your unique situation, this type of management system may take on various forms. Stockpiled perennial forages, annual forages (including cover crops), crop residues and bale grazing are all options that may work on your operation.
The following producer profiles highlight some of the ways these strategies have been successfully implemented in Eastern Canada.
Manning Family Farm – Falmouth, Nova Scotia
Cover crop and corn grazing
The Manning Family Farm is located near Falmouth, Nova Scotia, and is operated by Dean and Catherine Manning and their family. They run an 80-head cow herd with split calving seasons in the late spring and early fall; they also grow field crops and vegetables. A goal on their farm is to maximize biodiversity and sustainability.
Part of their commitment to sustainable beef production is through extending their grazing season. They have been grazing stockpiled forage and standing corn for several years and this past winter experimented with grazing a cover crop cocktail mix. Cover crops are often grown for agronomic reasons—they hold on to soil, improve water infiltration and reduce runoff. However, they also provide a valuable feed source for grazing livestock, and including grazing animals in the system can help further improve the soil.
Photo provided by Nova Scotia beef producers Dean and Catherine Manning
In 2021, the Mannings’ cover crop was seeded mid-August onto an 11-acre field after a crop of winter rye was harvested. The mix included fall rye (36%), Austrian winter peas (20%), hairy vetch (12%), crimson clover (10%), turnips (5%), forage kale (5%), berseem clover (5%), Nitro radish (2%), sunflowers (2%), Vivant hybrid brassica (2%) and phacelia (1%). This cocktail mix was chosen to maximize diversity within the stand.
Fifty bred heifers were turned into the field on December 2, with an average weight of 1,200 pounds. Dean reported it took approximately one week for the cows to learn how to eat the roots of the radishes and turnips.
Another benefit of grazing cover crops is annuals will usually be higher quality than what is typically available as stockpiled pasture. “I knew the feed had to be pretty good . . . they didn’t mind looking for feed in the snow,” Dean remarked. Forage samples showed 15.5% crude protein and 71% total digestible nutrient levels. There was approximately 7,300 pounds of dry matter/acre available which included both the above-ground leafy material and the turnip and radish roots. This resulted in approximately three weeks worth of grazing; the herd was able to graze the cover crop until late December. Dean reported that weeds were not a concern, likely due to the time of planting.
Photo provided by Dean and Catherine Manning
Corn grazing is another opportunity that the Mannings use to graze cattle throughout the winter. After the cattle had finished grazing cover crops this past winter, they were moved to a nearby piece of land where silage corn had been grown for the purpose of winter grazing.
The cows strip-grazed through the field and were allowed controlled access to rows of corn. Acidosis can be a concern if cows are allowed access to too much corn at once as they will selectively eat the cobs and get insufficient fibre. To mitigate this, the Mannings fed bales of hay in addition to the standing corn—at least half of the total diet. Controlled access also improved manure distribution and allowed for more uniform animal impact to trample stalks. On previous corn grazing locations, the area was replanted with a forage mix and used for harvested forage and stockpiling. This year they planted corn and brassicas where the cover crop had been grazed.
Over time, Dean is interested in seeing how winter grazing affects soil quality and continues to contribute to the sustainability of their farm. The farm meets the certified sustainable beef standards as outlined by the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef through the Verified Beef Production Plus program. The Mannings were the recipients of the Canadian Cattle Association Environmental Stewardship Award for 2021 and Nova Scotia’s Provincial Farm Environmental Stewardship Award in 2010.
Québec beef producers Jacob Morin and Rosemarie Allen
Le Paysan Gourmand – Saint-Félix-de-Kingsey, Québec
Stockpiled, corn and bale grazing
Le Paysan Gourmand is a family farm located 20 minutes from Drummondville, Québec and is run by Jacob Morin and Rosemarie Allen and their young family. They have 80 black Angus cow-calf pairs that are grazed year-round on their 300-acre farm and neighbouring cropland. In addition, they also raise pastured pork and run a market garden. Three years ago, they took over the family farm after farming alongside Jacob’s parents.
They finish their cattle on farm and sell half of their product direct to consumer as grass-fed beef and the other half to a retailer in Montreal. They also sell purebred black Angus heifers and bulls that have been proven for grass-based systems. In the past, they have had Salers and Simmental as well but feel that the smaller frame size and large rumen capacity of Angus works well for their operation.
Their motivations to keep cattle outdoors year-round include improved animal health and increased profit margins, in addition to environmental sustainability. The barn on their property is an old dairy barn “with terrible ventilation,” Jacob says. They also see reduced costs by not operating their tractor while cattle are grazing corn, including no need to spread manure or haul bales. When bale grazing, they primarily buy in all their bales and have them delivered directly to the grazing site. On occasion when they do bale their own forage, they select fields which are nearby the chosen grazing site to reduce the hauling distance. This year they are growing corn on the site of last winter’s bale grazing which will reduce or eliminate the need for fertilizer.
Photo provided by Jacob Morin and Rosemarie Allen
Photo provided by Jacob Morin and Rosemarie Allen
After the growing season, dry cows are grazed on stockpiled pasture before being moved to corn residue on a neighbour’s property. From around Christmas to early-mid February, they are moved to standing corn and finally, bale grazing until mid-April when they go to calving pastures. In the calving pastures, the cows are fed bales on the ground every other day. As they calve, they are moved to their regular pasture where they are rotationally grazed throughout the growing season. Calving season lasts from the end of April until early July. To address any challenges with mud the family is building a high-density wintering yard with a bed pack on sand where the cattle can be moved in the event of thaws, although they expect that good rotations should limit the use of it.
This year, they are working on installing permanent, energy-free winter watering systems across the farm to allow better access to winter water, in the event that there is not enough snow available to satisfy the animals’ requirements and to reduce the distance animals currently have to walk to water. They are also aiming to directly market more of their beef and increase the number of breeding bulls being sold.
Jacob stresses the importance of having the correct herd genetics to graze year-round. He suggests that producers purchasing bulls should think about the goals of their operation and look for bulls from farms that share the same values and production systems. He encourages visiting the farms before buying bulls, if possible. In addition to this, he also suggests that producers shouldn’t be afraid to cull cows that aren’t performing for them.
Beef producer Rosemarie Allen on her Québecfamily farm, Le PaysanGourmand
“If they aren’t working for you, they end up costing you money compared to selling them, Jacob says. “They are taking the place of a cow that would work better for your situation.” For their system, they require their cows to breed back and raise a calf every year.
Variable weather is a challenge that the Morin family encounters; sometimes the snow comes earlier than expected or frost comes later. When grazing corn residue on neighbouring cropland they wait until after the ground is frozen to prevent damage to the field. Jacob says, “It’s a matter of being observant and adaptable and that every year is a learning experience; it’s all part of the process.”
For more information about fall and winter grazing options, visit the BCRC’s recently updatedExtended Grazing topic page.
This post was developed in collaboration and with the expertise of staff at Perennia Food and Agriculture, based in Nova Scotia.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Until the Cows Come Home: Five Strategies to Stop Sickness Before It Starts This Fall 🎙️
Outsourcing breeding stock, including bulls and replacement heifers, can pose a biosecurity risk that should be managed.
Biosecurity hazards on beef operations are sometimes overlooked, however the risk of introducing disease onto your farm is real and relatively common. It can be especially prevalent in the fall when cattle return from various community pastures, grazing leases or even pastures that border neighbouring livestock.
Other common fall practices such as borrowing stock trailers or outsourcing transport, sharing chutes or buying in replacement breeding stock can bring more risk than what producers bargain for. Fortunately, there are some practices that producers can implement to help manage their biosecurity risks.
Blake Balog, DVM
Producers first have to accept and be aware of biosecurity risks that exist. “No animal industry can claim to be a closed industry,” explains Dr. Blake Balog.
Balog, who practices veterinary medicine out of the Bow Valley Veterinary Clinic at Brooks, Alberta, says visiting farms and auction marts, hosting tours, attending livestock and 4-H shows, borrowing livestock equipment and even visiting your vet clinic can be risky endeavours.
Consider outsourced feeds when thinking about disease exposure. “Anthrax has been brought in from baled up feed or silage,” Balog says, adding that feeds can also contain mycotoxins or ergot and cause problems. “These too have to be part of your biosecurity radar,” he says.
Daniel Pecoskie, DVM with Metzger Veterinary Services out of Linwood, Ontario, says bringing replacement stock on-farm is a common risk producers must address. “I think a lot of times replacement cattle coming in get overlooked, or on the side of the bull, the potential to bring in disease with new arrivals,” Pecoskie explains.
Daniel Pecoskie, DVM
A great place to start developing a biosecurity plan is with your veterinarian. Though an established veterinary-client-patient relationship, you can work to identify risks and mitigate hazards. Having a comprehensive on-farm vaccination protocol is essential to mitigating any potential viruses, diseases and pest problems that a herd is exposed to.
In addition to effective herd vaccination, there are a few specific practices producers implement:
1. Manage cattle that go into (and come out of) a community pasture strategically.
Balog says producers should take a proactive stance in community grazing situations. “Be a leader in preventative measures,” he says. “Don’t send those troubled critters so you aren’t the person helping spread,” Balog adds. For example, animals in poor body condition score should not be shipped to a community pasture.
Cattle coming out of community pastures or grazing leases can bring unwanted diseases home, even if they appear healthy. It’s recommended to manage them separately for 3-4 weeks before joining them to the main herd.
“Tagging and managing as separate cohorts can be a good management tool,” says Balog, both before and after the grazing season. After cattle return, ideally, they will be kept separate from the main herd until preg-checking. “It really depends what bug we are talking about, but often we are going to see something within a three-to-four-week time frame,” he says. If producers do end up bringing home cows carrying a disease that causes fetal loss such as BVD or IRB, having them apart from the main herd limits that spread. “That three-to-four-week window pays dividends in terms of disease prevention.”
Balog suggests pasture staff should have a standardized protocol for vaccination, disease identification and treatment. And, they should work closely with a veterinarian when things aren’t looking right.
Pecoskie adds that community pastures and commingled grazing require everyone to get on board. “It takes a concerted effort on behalf of all parties involved to come up with a protocol to reduce the risk of mixed cattle exposed to other disease,” he explains.
2. Isolate new arrivals and test target animals.
“Quarantine new arrivals in a separate pen or field or paddock for three weeks,” recommends Pecoskie, in order to monitor for signs of transmissible diseases and things like visible dermatitis, lameness and ringworm. Isolated new entrants should not have access to common watering points or nose-to-nose contact with other cattle from the main herd.
When purchasing breeding stock, ask about vaccination status and any historical health issues such as foot rot, pinkeye, pneumonia or scours, that the sellers may have had. “Sometimes animals may appear healthy but there are some pathogens that carry over in mucosa and flare up in the year later on,” says Balog.
Pecoskie says buyers or sellers should consider testing cattle prior to any transactions. “BVD, IBR, reproductive diseases like leptospirosis, Johne’s disease, those are some of the diseases that we can scan for,” explains Dr. Pecoskie.
Dr. Balog agrees there are cost-effective testing options for many transmissible diseases, particularly BVD. He adds that producers can request a fecal panel test for internal parasites (depending on the time of year) and also suggests testing bulls for trichomoniasis and vibrio.
Testing can also be used as a marketing tool. “Doing and showing the steps we are taking – maybe it’s routine disease testing – that can get us to another level of disease-free status and marketing opportunities,” Balog adds.
Biosecurity refers to preventing the introduction of disease onto a farm.
Biocontainment refers to managing the spread of disease within a farm.
Balog says producers should also have a biocontainment plan to isolate sick cattle from within their existing herd. “Alot of the bugs that we think about, things like pneumonia and scours, are already there on your operation, how do you reduce that exposure?” he asks. For example, Balog says producers should avoid bringing home a sick cow and putting her in with replacement heifers. “Now you’re exposing the sick animal to your naïve animals,” he says. “Create true biocontainment and have a sick pen and keep them away from other animals.”
3. Keep it clean.
Cleaning and disinfecting commonly used fall equipment such as portable scales, chutes or transport trailers between farms is key.
Incorporate single-use supplies on sick animals when possible. When using syringe guns, change needles frequently and clean and allow adequate drying time between uses.
Pecoskie says using farm-specific clothing and ensuring boots are cleaned and disinfected between subsequent farms can also go a long way to preventing the spread of disease. “For other equipment like bottles and tubes, wash with soap and warm water,” he says. “Change needles frequently, clean syringes and make sure they are nice and dry between uses,” he adds, so that subsequent usage for vaccination or treatment is safe and effective.
“Even sharing equipment within operations on different critters is a risk,” warns Dr. Balog. For example, administering oral meloxicam to a scouring calf, then using the same contaminated tube on calves in a branding pen can result in the spread of disease.
“With things like drenchers, tubes, bottles, you want to work clean to dirty, from the lowest risk to highest risk animals,” Balog explains. “Have a separate tube for scouring calves and a separate one for newborns.”
4. Take care if you share.
Pecoskie says it’s best if producers avoid sharing items between farms, however if it is going to happen, it should be well thought out. “There should be a conversation between producers about vaccine protocols in one herd versus the other,” he advises. “Discuss the level of risk and protection between farms sharing equipment like chutes, or animals such as bulls,” he says.
Good communication can help reduce risks. “If a problem arises, you at least have an idea of what you are dealing with as far as vaccine status and parasite status and what you may be exposing your herd to,” Pecoskie adds.
5. Know the flow.
On a broader scale, it’s valuable to assess the animal flow on your farm. “How is your operation laid out? What kind of interactions do you have that might be risky? Where does deadstock go? Where are your pastures and do they border someone with a lower biosecurity?” questions Balog.
Balog suggests taking a Google map of your farm facility to look at drainage, assess potential risks, and consider making changes for pens for different groups or age categories of animals to reduce exposure to effluent or other disease reservoirs. “Look at animal movement through calving season and throughout the year.”
Pecoskie says that getting back to the basics of making sure yards are clean and producers have adequate bedding will help manage disease during high-risk times such as calving or bringing new animals in.
Biosecurity on Every Scale
Whether you have a small-sized farm or a larger operation, biosecurity matters. “The risk of bringing something onto your farm or transmitting a disease to another farm can financially have an impact, as well as a welfare impact,” says Dr. Pecoskie.
Effective biosecurity also has a global influence. “The threat of foreign animal diseases can have an impact on our beef herds and beef industry and impact trade,” Balog says. Canada’s stringent animal health, food safety and biosecurity standards can instill confidence in our beef sector throughout the value chain.
There is also a human health benefit to practicing biosecurity measures when it comes to the issue of zoonotic diseases, which are transmissible from animals to people. “Zoonotic diseases are real and exist on our operations, some are scarier than others and some we don’t know if there is a link,” Dr. Balog says.
Balog says reducing biosecurity risks and planning ahead can take just a few extra minutes each day, and often doesn’t have to cost a lot. “It comes down to a few simple things done right every day.”
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Getting the Dirt on Cleaning Versus Disinfecting 🎙️
We all know raising animals is a dirty job. The piles of mucky boots at the door and the stacks of laundry that seem to grow out of thin air are all evidence of the constant battle for cleanliness in the day-to-day operations of a cattle farm. Although we do our best to keep the dirt where it belongs, are we being mindful of the germs that could be lurking within?
“Germs” or pathogens come in all shapes and sizes, and all can pose risk to the health and wellbeing of both the cattle and the people handling them. These tiny invaders can be transferred around your property in dozens of different ways. This can lead to devastating losses, such as abortion in the cow herd, scouring of calves and even decreased performance of herd sires. It is important to know how to implement best practices to both prevent infections from occurring and eliminate the spread once they are already present.
The first step in developing any best practice protocol is always to ask the question: “What are we trying to accomplish?” When tackling the job of cleaning and/or disinfecting a particular part of a farm, we need to ask a few basic questions.
Are we cleaning or disinfecting, or both?
What types of pathogens are we trying to eliminate?
What products should we use?
What is the contact time needed for disinfection?
The difference between cleaning and disinfecting
Disinfection products (such as Prevail, Dettol, or Virkon) are chemical compounds designed to destroy specific pathogens. In order for these products to work, the area to be disinfected must be free from organic compounds (such as manure, dirt, feed and bedding) to ensure the chemicals can come into contact with the pathogens themselves and are not inactivated by any organic materials. We accomplish this by cleaning. Without this step, the time and effort spent disinfecting is money down the drain.
Cleaning can further be broken down into three steps:
Dry cleaning: Physically removing as much of the organic matter as possible prior to applying any detergents or water (e.g., shoveling out the trailer before washing it, or scraping boots before heading to the boot dip).
Wet cleaning: The process of applying detergent and water. The detergent can chemically break down the biofilm (a thin, slimy film of bacteria that adheres to a surface) and the mechanical action of scrubbing and water spray will whisk away the organic material that remains in the way of proper disinfection. Rinse all cleaner residues from surfaces using clean water at the end of this step.
Drying: All surfaces should be allowed to dry completely before proceeding to disinfection.
Once your surface is clean and dry, you can proceed to disinfection.
Disinfection can only occur once the surface is clean. There are three main considerations when choosing a disinfection product:
What pathogens are you dealing with? Are you trying to prevent as many pathogens as possible when you clean out a neighbour’s trailer for use on your farm? Or, have you had an outbreak in your calving barn and you know specifically what pathogen you are targeting? Be careful to choose a product that covers the types of pathogens that may be threatening your herd.
Mixing instructions: Ensure that you are following the product label and mixing instructions. Not mixing strong enough could lead to incomplete disinfection. Mixing too strong could potentially cause health effects from concentrated chemical exposure. Either mistake is a waste of disinfectant and money.
What is the contact time to accomplish disinfection? Many disinfectants need upwards of 30 minutes of “contact time” (the amount of time that a chemical must be in contact with a pathogen in order to destroy it). Be sure to double check the recommended contact time on the product label. During this time the surface must be kept wet with the disinfectant, which can be challenging to accomplish, especially with vertical smooth surfaces such as stall walls or trailer walls. Many products or product combinations have taken this obstacle into consideration and will include a foaming action to help the product adhere to surfaces for a longer period of time. Once contact time has been accomplished, most disinfectants will need to be rinsed off and the surface air dried.
The key to good disinfection is certainly cleaning. One can clean without disinfecting, but you cannot disinfect without cleaning. When choosing cleaning and disinfecting products for your farm, make sure you make yourself familiar with the label. Although labels can be daunting it is important to familiarize yourself with the pathogens that the product is effective against, mixing instructions, and the contact time. Just as you would not use an antibiotic without knowing the dose, it is crucial to use these products as directed. When used properly, disinfecting agents can be your first defense against pathogens entering and spreading through your animals, saving you precious time and money.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Looking to Cut Costs this Spring? Think Twice Before Cutting Vitamins, Minerals and Vaccinations 🎙️
With increasing input costs and many regions having poor growing conditions in recent years, there is pressure this spring to reduce input costs wherever possible. It is important to make these decisions carefully – sometimes the short-term savings are out-weighed by much greater long-term costs. Skimping on your cattle nutrition and vaccination programs may save you in the short term, but can set you up for long-lasting negative consequences.
Not meeting minimum nutritional needs increases treatment and death rates
While vitamin and mineral supplements may seem like an added or unwanted cost, maintaining or enhancing your nutrition program can help prevent both reproductive wrecks and sickness in the future.
Vitamin supplementation becomes even more critical during and after drought. Vitamins A and E come from leafy green plants, so these vitamins are likely to be deficient when cows are eating drought-impacted forages.
Calves born the spring following a drought have a much higher risk of vitamin A deficiency. Calves with severe vitamin A deficiency are nearly three times more likely to die than those with higher vitamin A levels. Vitamin A is available in an injectable form, but thetypical vitamin A, D and E injectable supplement does not contain enough vitamin E to improve an animal’s mineral status. Vitamin E must be supplemented another way.
In addition to vitamins, mineral supplementation is also important. Previous work on western Canadian herds has shown that calves with low mineral levels at birth were six times more likely to be treated for pneumonia, scours or navel infection than their counterparts. In the same study, researchers found that calves born to cows with poor mineral status were also more likely to die before weaning.
Copper deficiency is an ongoing concern, especially in western Canada where soils tend to be deficient in copper. The risk can be even higher during a drought as feed and water both can be high in sulfates, which binds to copper and makes it less available to the animals. Copper deficiency can lead to reproductive wrecks. Adequate copper in your mineral program helps give cows their best chance to rebreed and produce healthy calves next year.
Talk to your nutritionist, veterinarian or local extension specialist about a vitamin and mineral program that is a good fit for your operation and location.
In extreme cases, injectable minerals can fix deficiencies much more rapidly than feed supplements. Your veterinarian can provide injectable minerals, but they may need to be imported from the United States or overseas.
Insufficient vaccination puts you at risk for a disease outbreak
Vaccinations may be another cost you are considering cutting, but this is risky. A survey of Canadian beef producers showed many producers justify not vaccinating because they believe they have a closed herd. Your herd is not closed and at risk for disease exposure if you:
buy in any females or bulls,
have fence line contact with other herds,
use community pastures,
expose your herd to wildlife or
have any exposure to other cattle or places where cattle have been.
While the cost of vaccination may add up, it is cheap insurance to prevent large scale disease outbreaks and expensive losses associated with disease. The cost to treat a small number of calves or the death loss associated with even a small disease outbreak often outweigh the cost of a vaccine.
It’s tempting to cut corners on vaccinations, but consider the financial risks of taking that chance. On a 150-head cow-calf farm that fails to vaccinate, an “average” outbreak of bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVD) with 20% of the herd aborting will result in a financial hit of nearly $50,000. If the outbreak is severe and 59% of cows abort, that farm sustains an estimated loss of $138,500.
Here are some things to consider when talking to your veterinarian about a vaccine program for your herd:
If you will be using a community pasture or other commingled grazing situation, reproductive diseases like vibrio or campylobacteriosis become more of a risk. Ask your vet about protecting your herd from these (and other) diseases.
There is increasing evidence that providing intra-nasal vaccinations to calves at birth reduces the chance of sickness and death when calves go out to pasture.
Pre-breeding is the ideal time to vaccinate your cow herd. However, other times of the year may be more practical for you and fit within the allowable times for vaccination. If you didn’t get around to vaccinating pre-breeding, or won’t have time, discuss alternative vaccination timing with your veterinarian.
Avoid long-term problems caused by short-term solutions
Beef producers continue to prove their resilience and creativity during challenging times. Reducing expenses can be a helpful management strategy, but choose wisely. Avoid cutting back on cattle nutrition and vaccination programs that can have dramatic, long-lasting and costly consequences.
Additional cattle nutrition and vaccination Resources
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
How (and Why) These Eastern Canadian Cow-Calf Producers Changed and Defined Their Calving Periods 🎙️
There are many interconnected variables that affect, or are affected by, calving season. Considerations such as infrastructure and facilities to remove and house bulls following a defined breeding season, herd size, regional market prices, targeted weaning time and labour availability are a few factors that impact a calving period.
These producers did their homework and planned ahead before shifting their calving seasons in order to meet the needs of their particular farms and families.
Spencer Yeo, Nova Scotia – Shorten Calving Period from Twelve to Six Weeks
“If you’re going to adjust your calving window, you need to make sure your cows are in good shape to do it successfully.” – Spencer Yeo, Nova Scotia
Six years ago, Spencer Yeo who now farms in Nova Scotia had a large calving window, with the bull in year-round. About 60% of his herd calved during a 12-week timeframe but there were always stragglers which meant a lot of extra nights checking cows. Yeo had a small herd and was selling calves direct from the farmyard. With a mix of weights and smaller calves pulling the average price down, he saw an opportunity for change.
Yeo aimed to transition to a six-week calving period to help with time management as he also works off-farm full-time. He chose to aim for February calving because it is typically a little warmer then, in his region. It is also a time of year when he has the most free-time and when the majority of his cows were already calving so he was working with the herd versus against them.
The transition occurred within a single year with the breeding season shortened to May 1 through mid-June. Preg checking occurred in August, and any open females were sold. This worked well as cull cow prices were seasonally higher in August versus later in the fall, which resulted in extra income. Bull management includes the option of leasing out for a few months or selling after the breeding season. Yeo replaces the bull every two years, so only has to deal with a bull in the off-season every other year.
Considerations
There were concerns about having a significant number of open females in the transition year. Surprisingly, conception rate was high. Leading up to breeding season, the cows were on a high plane of nutrition to support conception. Spencer noted, “If you are going to adjust your calving window, you need to make sure your cows are in good shape to do it successfully.”
Infrastructure is another important consideration. In Nova Scotia, snow and freezing rain is common. Producers need to have a bedding pack under a roof, and space may be a limiting factor. Spencer had the facilities to do this but recognizes others might not choose a February calving window based on existing facilities.
The Benefits
In moving to a six-week calving season, Spencer noted it was relatively easy to identify cows that weren’t pulling their weight. With the goal of having a cow calve every 12 months, versus every 14 months or longer, it became very evident which females were meeting that objective. With a longer calving season it is harder to identify those cows that are not generating the same income as the rest. Also, with the tight calving window, Yeo has a more uniform group of calves at sale time, making it less likely to be docked on price.
From a labour standpoint, calving at Yeo’s farm is now an intense six weeks, but then it is done. Yeo notes that this provides the opportunity for vacations and time away from the farm as he is no longer staying home waiting for that one last cow to calve. Recognizing that quality of life is important, he also says there are no more late-night barn checks.
Overall, the transition to a shortened calving period has accomplished everything that he set out to do. Spencer encourages producers to keep an open mind. This includes taking a look at where they are now to see if adjusting their calving window is something that could work for them.
Donald Badour, Ontario – A Shift from Winter to Fall Calving
“You couldn’t pay me to go back to winter calving. It has been so much easier. Labour-wise, we went from checking every two hours to checking once per day and twice a day on heifers.” – Donald Badour, Ontario
Almost a decade ago, Donald Badour and his family were calving from January 1 through February with a tight 60-day calving window, based on a March 20 to mid-May breeding season. Family labour was available which meant regular checks could be done throughout the day and night. As labour availability decreased and the opportunity to purchase another farm came up, the family decided to switch to fall calving from August 20 to the end of September with the breeding season starting November 14. The calving window stayed the same at 60 days.
The Badours had originally planned to shift the herd in thirds, holding back breeding of one-third of the herd for six months to result in the whole herd shifted over three years. After the first year, they realized fall calving was much easier. They did not have enough labour for two calving seasons, so they switched the rest of the herd in year two.
Their cows were always wintered outside with access to shelter, and that has remained the same. This is one of the driving reasons why they aim to be finished calving by the end of September. Calves that are any younger are much harder to manage through the winter. Their calves overwinter well in this management system and are an example that wintering calves outside in this region is possible.
The Benefits
The Badours’ main motivation for switching their calving season was to reduce labour. While winter calving, they were doing night checks and that workload has been eliminated with fall calving. Donald says, “You couldn’t pay me to go back to winter calving. It has been so much easier. Labour-wise, we went from checking every two hours to checking once per day and twice a day on heifers.”
Herd health overall has improved since the transition. Weather fluctuations with January calving often resulted in increased calf illness and higher treatment rates. In the 15 years since switching to fall calving, there have been no incidences of scours in the herd.
Any Change Requires Some Adjustments
During the first couple of years following transition to fall calving, lower conception rates made the Badours realize that they needed to change their winter feeding practices. With January calves, sold mid-September, they had utilized low-quality hay going into the fall. That was no longer feasible as they recognized the need to provide good-quality feed during breeding season, which had shifted to mid-November. It took some alterations and it was a bigger adjustment for older cows, while the younger females adapted to the change more easily. Overall, it took three years before they were happy with the performance.
Calving difficulties were reduced, as cows calving on pasture were in good body condition. However, if there was a difficulty it became a challenge due to a lack of pasture handling facilities.
Management of pastures became a consideration as well. This ended up being well-timed with the purchase of land that included more open fields (less rough ground and bush) allowing easier monitoring of cows and processing of newborn calves every day. Since calving on pasture, predators have been more of an issue. This adds to the increased need for closer monitoring of newborns.
Costs and Profitability
Fall calving has resulted in increased feed consumption (12-13 bales per cow) as compared to winter calving (10 bales per cow). This increase is due to peak lactation occurring during the winter months rather than in spring and early summer when cows are grazing. Over the last year, Badour found corn silage supported more production for fall calving cows when lactating through the winter months. Weaning weights were 52 pounds heavier, and cows came through the production cycle in very good body condition.
One major change for this operation was developing new relationships and finding buyers in a different market selling slightly younger calves during the first week of May. However, prices are seasonally strong in that time period. While weaning weights were down in first year, returns per calf were greater due to the higher price per pound. Calves are currently selling at 550 pounds, and Badour is very happy with the result.
Visit BCRC’s new Calving Seasons webpage for more information.
Sharing or reprinting BCRC posts is welcome and encouraged. Please credit the Beef Cattle Research Council, provide the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you have chosen to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
The BCRC is funded by a portion of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off.
Your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome. Contact us directly or spark a public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
Cracking the Code on Grazing Management Terminology: Animal Units, AUMs, & How to Apply Them 🎙️
Does it feel like grazing management information is shrouded in acronyms and terms that boggle the mind on first glance? Do you struggle to decipher terms like animal unit equivalents? And how does one go about calculating AUMs and then applying those numbers? Be reassured, you’re not alone! There’s a lot going on when sorting through the finer points of grazing management and figuring out how to work through the many calculations.
A good starting point is defining a grazing animal in terms of how much forage it requires to meet its nutritional demands. We know that grazing animals’ forage needs differ depending on class, weight, age and stage of production. And in order to account for those differences, it’s helpful to create a baseline in order to quantify forage demand.
Click image to enlarge.
An animal unit (AU) is defined as a 1,000 lb beef cow with or without a nursing calf, with a daily dry matter forage requirement of 26 lbs. By standardizing grazing animals at 1,000 pounds as one animal unit (AU), we are able to use that as a basis for calculating the relative grazing impact of different kinds and classes of livestock. We can work off of one AU to adjust for other animal types.
Use the Calculating Forage Requirements chart to find the Animal Unit Equivalent (AUE) that best defines your grazing animals.
For example, yearlings ranging from 800-900 pounds are considered equivalent to 0.85 animal units (AUs) while a 1,400-pound cow, with calf at side, is considered to be 1.3 AUs. Essentially, the larger the animal and the greater their nutritional requirements, the higher the animal unit equivalent value.
With a clear picture in mind of an animal unit and its equivalents, the leap to quantifying forage demand with measures such as animal unit days (AUDs) or animal unit months (AUMs), is not difficult. If one AU requires 26 pounds of forage dry matter per day, we can then easily extrapolate to calculate the needs of any animal for a longer period of time.
An animal unit month (AUM) is the amount of forage to fulfill metabolic requirements of one animal unit for one month (30 days). Therefore, one AUM is equal to 780 lbs of dry matter forage (26 lbs/day x 30 days).
Think of an AUM as the amount of forage that you need to provide to an animal to maintain them for one month. But remember, that animal weighs only 1,000 pounds. Anything more, or less, has to be accounted for by using animal unit equivalents (AUEs).
Once you are comfortable with these standardized units, they become very useful tools to strategize and plan for various grazing options. Consider the following scenarios as examples of how you might use animal unit equivalents to begin the groundwork for grazing management strategies on paper before applying them in real time.
A herd of 150 cow-calf pairs averaging 1,400 pounds (1.3 animal unit equivalent; see chart above), equals 195 animal units (150 pairs x 1.3 AUE = 195 AUs)
A group of 150 yearlings, weighing an average of 850 pounds (0.85 animal unit equivalent; see chart above), equates to 128 animal units (150 yearlings x 0.85 AUE = 128 AUs)
If you want to graze that 150 pair cowherd (195 AUs) for 6 months, pasture acres must be available that can supply a total of 1170 AUMs (195 AUs x 6 months = 1170 AUMs)
If grazing 150 yearlings (128 AUs) for 6 months, total forage demand is 768 AUMs (128 AUs x 6 months = 768 AUMs)
Calculating and understanding forage requirements allows us to be able to match that demand up with available forage supply. The BCRC Carrying Capacity Calculator helps with that. It walks users through estimating available forage to determine the number of head and length of time that animals can graze a specific pasture or paddock.
Remember that these values are all approximations and averages; we are using numbers to estimate and standardize what happens in reality to guide informed decision making for your operation. It is important to note that there many factors at play when managing and balancing grazing demand and available forage supply. The real world always overrides what calculations attempt to predict but, they can provide a starting point for planning and forecasting.
You’ve now got a few of the basics in hand to understand the foundations of the art and science of grazing management. It is this critical information that will assist as you navigate real world situations like developing targeted grazing plans, implementing rest periods or managing through drought and recovery.
To take the next steps in applying this information or to expand your knowledge, visit these resources:
Click here tosubscribeto the BCRC Blog and receive email notifications when new content is posted.
The sharing or reprinting of BCRC Blog articles is welcome and encouraged. Please provide acknowledgement to the Beef Cattle Research Council, list the website address, www.BeefResearch.ca, and let us know you chose to share the article by emailing us at info@beefresearch.ca.
We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. Contact us directly or generate public discussion by posting your thoughts below.
