DATE: 12/09/2016 WRITER: Jane Moorman,
505-249-0527, jmoorman@nmsu.edu CONTACT: Mark Marsalis , 505-865-7340, marsalis@nmsu.edu
RUIDOSO – Hay operation resilience and flexibility during tough economic
times will highlight the 2017 Southwest Hay & Forage Conference Jan. 11-13
at the Ruidoso Convention Center in Ruidoso.
“Low hay prices and high input costs have caused producers to question
traditional practices and consider how they can do things differently in order
to increase their profit margins,” said Mark Marsalis, New Mexico State
University Extension forage specialist. “This conference will address concerns
of financial uncertainty and how to use new technology and alternative crops to
improve crop and economic diversity.”
The conference is sponsored by the New Mexico Hay Association and NMSU.
NMSU’s College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences Dean
Rolando Flores’ opening remarks will kick off the conference’s general session
Thursday, Jan. 12.
Flores promotes the importance of NMSU’s College of ACES in the state’s
economic development through research and education in the areas of better
water utilization/conservation systems, stewardship of the environment, a
better food production system and healthier New Mexicans.
“This year, we’ve assembled a broad range of forage knowledge and expertise
from universities, farmers and industry interests across the United States,”
Marsalis said. “This panel of speakers is sure to provide valuable information
that our New Mexico producers don’t want to miss.”
Among the speakers will be specialists from across the country with vast
experience of producing forages in challenging environmental and economic conditions.
Agricultural specialist presentations will include:
– Wayne Coblentz from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dairy Forage
Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin, speaking on hay preservation and hay
cutting management for maximum quality
– Joe Brummer of Colorado State University speaking on utilizing brassicas as
an alternative forage to increase diversity and farm flexibility
– Steve Orloff of the University of California Extension speaking about Roundup
Ready alfalfa; avoiding injury and weed resistance; and how to cut farm costs
during economic downturns
– Garrett Kennedy of Knopf Farms in Kansas speaking about no-till forages and
the challenges experienced and techniques used on a long-term, no-till
operation
– John Idowu, NMSU Extension agronomist, speaking about other alternative crops
that may fit into New Mexico operations
– Leslie Beck, NMSU Extension weed specialist, giving weed label updates for
forages
– Carol Sutherland, NMSU Extension entomologist, speaking about white-fringed beetle
and insect management
Presentations related to equipment efficiency and technology will be made on
new sprayer technologies and utilization by Tim Conoly of Wylie Sprayers and
corn planting technology by Stacey Bandoni-Lewis of Precision Planting.
Business and policy updates will be presented on:
– Workers’ Comp and OSHA regulation updates by Erica Moncayo of New Mexico
Mutual
– Pasture, rangeland and forage insurance by Kevin Gubbels of
InsureMyForage.com
– Legislative update by Zack Riley of New Mexico Farm Bureau
Thursday evening, agricultural comedian Tim “The Dairy Farmer” Moffett will be
the after-dinner entertainment, which will be followed by a live band and
dance.
The New Mexico Hay Association board of directors meeting will be held at 5 p.m.
Wednesday, Jan. 11, at the MCM Elegante Lodge & Resort (formerly the Lodge
of Sierra Blanca), and again immediately following the conference.
Five New Mexico pesticide applicator continuing education units have been
approved for this meeting. CEUs for Texas and Arizona have been requested.
Preregistration is $100 per person before Dec. 28. Attendees can register at
the door for $120. Annual membership dues to the association are $45. Register
online at: http://www.nmhay.com/2017-conference.html.
Registration includes the two-day conference, two meals and entertainment.
Lodging is available, at a discount, adjacent to the Ruidoso Convention Center
at the MCM Elegante Lodge & Resort (formerly the Lodge at Sierra Blanca). A
number of rooms are reserved at the special rate. You can reach them at:
1-866-211-7727 or online at: http://www.mcmeleganteruidoso.com/.
A North Dakota study shows smaller cows can produce more ranch profit, even when feedlot closeouts are applied to their steer calves.
Researchers at North Dakota State University took the data from the university’s own two cow herds, one averaging 1,050 pounds and the other averaging 1,450 pounds, and blended in cowherd data from Minnesota farm management records (FINBIN). This allowed them to compare data for a 100-cow, traditionally managed spring-calving herd with that of a May-calving, 120-head herd of smaller-framed cows. The same land mass would run either herd.
They needed the FINBIN data because all the university's cows, large and small, are now managed in a later-calving system with longer grazing into the winter timeframe.
I just published a synopsis of this research project on the Beef Producer website and you can read the annual report from NDSU.
The chart I've provided here gives a quick look at the numbers from the study. You'll see the first two columns are labeled FLOT for feedlot and include data from the half of steers that went to the feedlot each year. The labels (SF) are the smaller versus the larger (LF) steers. In the FLOT segment, these steers came out of the cow-calf program early and went straight to the feedlot.
The right two columns are labeled GRAZ and cover the grazing period for the steers kept on the farm to graze through the winter. Again, they are separated by large-frame and small-frame steers.
The gist of the story is this: Smaller cows were about $65 per head cheaper to keep and produced steer calves with total carcass value about $250 lower, and had a net return per steer of $74 less. However, because the steers and their dams were cheaper to feed and especially because they produced more tons of quality fed beef, they produced more profit.
NDSU beef specialist Kris Ringwall notes the smaller-framed cows produced about a 10% increase in revenue versus the larger-framed cows, based on steer calf performance all the way through the feedlot.
The smaller-framed cows' total finished-steer net return was $4,517 greater, when extrapolated to a herd of 120 cows averaging frame score 3.8 and weighing about 1,050 pounds, versus a herd of 100 cows averaging frame 5.5 and weighing about 1,450 pounds.
Herd figures showed smaller-framed cows earned $49,308 ($821.81 on 60 steers), while larger-framed cows earned $44,791 ($895.82 on 50 steers). Grazing costs and returns were not immediately evident in the charts, but could be figured from the grazing chart in the Beef Producer article or from the annual report. Grazing average daily gain was 2.34 pounds for large-framed steers and 2.13 pounds for small-framed steers. Cost to put on each pound of gain was 60.78 cents for large-framed steers and 55.67 cents for small-framed steers. Therefore we could assume it cost $1.42 per day to graze the large steers and $1.19 per day to graze the small steers.
You can plug in your own reasonable price to weigh against the cost, but if they were both worth $1.50 per pound, the added 2.34 pounds on the larger steers would be worth $3.51 and the added 2.13 pounds on the smaller steers would be worth $3.20. In that case, the daily profit per steer would be:
Large steer profit = $2.09 per head per day
Small steer profit = $2.01 per head per day
In looking at this project and data, it's very important to note the major cost-saving differences in cow management and not focus solely on cow frame score.
There exist three primary management differences between the two herds as they appear in the research project. Ringwall identifies these as major cost-cutting practices:
1. Later calving date decreases labor and cow feed costs.
2. Lower overhead with an intensified, multiple-crop rotation that includes cover crops, harvesting some crops and grazing the majority of the acreages by cows, calves and yearlings. Grazing lasts much longer into the fall.
3. Reduce cow frame score to decrease inputs and increase ranch output.
Ringwall says the later calving date discounts the idea of selling these smaller calves at a fall weaning and makes carrying them through a winter grazing program even more important. Alan Newport is editor of BEEF Vet and Beef Producer, sister publications to BEEF.
Ducks, wildlife and even livestock can move weed seed from one field into another and increase farmers' weed-control issues in the process.
Ducks are a hunter’s sweetest dream, but can be a farmer’s nightmare akin to flying time bombs expelling rapid-fire payloads of resistant weed seed. Wonder where the next pigweed outbreak will come from? Listen for quacks and honks, and look up.
Palmer amaranth typically hitches a ride north on the usual suspects: used equipment purchases, custom harvesters, hay, contaminated pollinator seed, cottonseed and gin trash. But new research by University of Missouri Extension weed scientists shows growers can tick off all those boxes of defense and still get nailed by a feathered threat from above.
Slicing sky at 60 mph, a flock of mallards with a tailwind often travels hundreds of miles in a handful of days, discharging waste with a rapidity rarely matched in the animal kingdom. They may eat supper in Arkansas, and defecate all the way to Iowa. Waterfowl droppings, strafe bombed throughout the Mississippi Flyway, can be laced with resistant weed seed. Simply, Palmer creep can quickly morph into a successful Hail Mary.
Prior to 2008, Palmer presence in Missouri was confined to the Bootheel region but began to march up the Mississippi River along bottom lands, presumably transported during flooding. Just eight years later in 2016, Palmer is confirmed in 31 counties. But to MU Extension weed scientist Kevin Bradley, the northern spread of Palmer due to flooding didn’t ring true when matched against the river’s southern flow. Several Missouri producers told Bradley that Palmer’s debut on their fields matched with a heavy presence of geese in prior months.
“I never discount anything a farmer tells me,” Bradley says. “I listened and began working with wildlife personnel to develop a project to find out if waterfowl could be a significant cause of pigweed spread.”
Bradley designed an experiment carried out by MU graduate student Jaime Farmer in two phases. First up, waterfowl collection to discover what weed species were consumed and transported in Missouri. Second, a follow-up feeding study to determine seed viability. Farmer’s weed-and-feed study offered an unprecedented peek into the potential for waterfowl to move agronomically important weeds across large distances.
Starting in October 2014, Farmer reached out to 20 friends in his ducking hunting network and asked for help to obtain specimens for testing, with everything permitted by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). After hunting trips scattered across the state, the group of licensed hunters pulled the meat, put ducks on ice, and called Farmer. When freezers filled, he picked up the birds and tagged them in a log kept for the MDC according to county, date of harvest, and hunter’s name. With 237 ducks from 13 species acquired, the next phase of research was ready.
“We couldn’t have done this without the hunters,” says Farmer, now a Pioneer field agronomist. “The University of Missouri wouldn’t sign off on a Benelli for the research, but I did get to participate in the harvest.”
After removing seed from the esophagus, gizzard and intestine, Farmer rinsed it through a sieve and planted each specimen in a greenhouse for a three-month window to test germination. From the 237 ducks, 14, 395 weed species emerged (30% were either waterhemp or Palmer). In 2015, Farmer repeated the process, obtaining 125 duck specimens and observing germination of 20,412 plants (2.3% were either waterhemp or Palmer). Farmer also extracted seed from 111 snow geese specimens and observed emergence of 86 weed species (9% pigweed).
Palmer amaranth is now confirmed in 31 Missouri counties.
Following collection of the hunter-harvested waterfowl data, Farmer next tested post-consumption seed viability. How much seed remains viable in duck droppings? At a MDC breeding house south of Columbia in the fall of 2015, he fed 13 varieties of weed seed to captive ducks via controlled tube feeding to ensure a precise quantity of seed. During feeding, the ducks were placed in metabolic chambers with freedom of movement, but segregated to ensure the integrity of fecal sampling.
“There was no variation in meal size because we knew the exact numbers of weed seed and weight,” Farmer says. “Then we monitored the ducks for 48 hours.”
Every four hours, Farmer and his research team removed collection tubs and checked viability through chemical analysis. Of the 13 weed species, 11 (lambsquarters, waterhemp, smartweed, Palmer, common ragweed, and more) were passed within four hours and remained viable. The majority of seed passed within 12 hours. However, harder and smaller seeds last longer in the digestive tract: The tiny Palmer seeds often were passed in viable condition at 40 hours and beyond.
How does 40-plus hours of passage equate with flight? A flight speed of 48 mph maintained for 38 hours could equate to 1,824 miles, plenty of distance to take a duck from any Southern state far across the Canadian border, theoretically dropping pigweed seed until the flight’s end.
“Birds have stopovers and don’t fly in a straight line, but the mechanical potential is there,” Farmer notes. “Frankly, the numbers are scary and show how weeds can make tremendous jumps.”
An average of 11,400 total seeds (all 13 weed species) were fed to the ducks in eight feeding trial runs, and an average of 2,500 seeds were recovered in viable condition after each trial. Specifically for Palmer: 3,183 seeds fed per trial with 815 (25.6%) were recovered viable. Specifically for waterhemp: 4,205 seeds fed per trial with 963 (22.9%) were recovered viable.
Farmer believes the study proves ducks can disperse Palmer and waterhemp seed over vast distances.
“You can farm in isolation, but still have weed resistance suddenly pop up in your fields, delivered by wildlife, not equipment or hay,” he says. “Everyone needs a multi-pronged weed management program already in place.”
Significantly, Farmer found an average of 18 pigweed seeds (either Palmer or waterhemp) in each duck harvested during 2014-15. The USFWS estimated a population of 48.4 million breeding ducks in 2016. Taken strictly by the numbers, ducks have the potential to transport 871 million pigweed seeds during any given segment of migration, according to Bradley.
From 111 snow geese specimens, 86 weed species emerged.
In October 2016, on the heels of Bradley’s research, MU's IPM announced the first finding of multi-resistant Palmer in Missouri, located in a river bottom north of St. Louis. According to MU's IPM, the confirmed case marks the first occurrence of Palmer in the state with resistance to group 14 herbicides.
The continued spread of resistant pigweed comes in tandem with a jump in herbicide and management costs. For producers already paying $45 to $50 in weed prevention, the prospect of increased financial pressure looms large. “This has been eye-opening and wakes people up,” Bradley says.
“Waterhemp has exploded up north and many of my colleagues partially attribute the spread to waterfowl transport,” he adds.
Christy Sprague, an Extension weed scientist with Michigan State University, has long-suspected resistant weed spread by waterfowl, based on waterhemp pop-ups across Michigan.
“Equipment and animal feed such as cottonseed and gin trash have moved waterhemp and Palmer around our area, but there is certainly the possibility that waterfowl are also a contributing factor," she says.
Despite Palmer’s spread, Bradley doesn’t paint a picture of total gloom.
"Over 1,000 miles from the source is a very realistic estimate of how far a mallard might transport waterhemp or Palmer,” he says. “Farmers are scared of Palmer and that works toward better prevention.”
Bradley’s research shows proximity is a hollow weed defense when ducks are overhead, and location is no antidote to resistant pigweed. Look to the skies.
“For any Midwest state, this means of pigweed spread is very possible,” he says. “Stay tuned.”
“The FDA acknowledges the important role medically important antimicrobials play in treating, controlling, and preventing disease in food-producing animals. However, the agency has been actively engaging veterinary organizations, animal producer organizations and other stakeholders to express our position that medically important antibiotics labeled for continuous or undefined durations of use is not consistent with judicious use principles, as outlined in previously-released guidance documents.” The labeled indications for using antimicrobials included disease treatment, control and prevention, along with growth promotion and feed efficiency. As of Jan 2016, the label indications of growth promotion and feed efficiency were prohibited and had to be removed from the label. Before 1996, there were only two options for dispensing new animal drugs: (1) over-the-counter (OTC), and (2) prescription. In 1996 Congress enacted the Animal Drug Availability Act (ADAA) to facilitate the approval and marketing of new animal drugs and medicated feeds. As part of the ADAA, Congress recognized that certain new animal drugs intended for use in animal feed should only be administered under a veterinarian's order and professional supervision. For example, veterinarians are needed to control the use of certain antimicrobials. Control is critical to reducing unnecessary use of such drugs in animals and to slowing or preventing any potential for the development of bacterial resistance to antimicrobial drugs. Therefore, the ADAA created a new category of products called veterinary feed directive drugs (or VFD drugs). So when a new animal drug application is submitted to FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) for approval, CVM evaluates the drug for safety and effectiveness, and as part of the review process, determines whether the drug will be an over-the-counter (OTC) drug, a prescription (Rx) drug, or a VFD drug (limited to drugs used in or on animal feed). According to federal regulations enacted through the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA), extralabel drug use (ELDU) means "actual use or intended use of a drug in an animal in a manner that is not in accordance with the approved labeling. This includes, but is not limited to, use in species not listed in the labeling, use for indications (disease or other conditions) not listed in the labeling, use at dosage levels, frequencies, or routes of administration other than those stated in the labeling, and deviation from the labeled withdrawal time based on these different uses." According to AMDUCA, veterinarians who treat food animals with drugs in an extralabel manner must use evidence "...derived from food safety data or other scientific information..." in order to determine an appropriate withdrawal interval (WDI) that allows for a New Mexico State University Extension Animal Sciences & Natural Resources Department Volume 83 November 2016 conservative estimate of drug residue level in edible animal tissues. Under the VFD provisions, EXTRALABEL DRUG USE IN FEED IS ILLEGAL. Extralabel drug use in feed, even by a veterinarian where a valid VCPR exists, is NOT permitted and is considered illegal. In New Mexico, a valid VCPR is defined by Statute and Rule as follows: A. NMSA 61.14.2.J. "valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship" means: (1) The veterinarian has assumed responsibility for making medical judgments regarding the health of an animal being treated and the need for and the course of the animal's medical treatment; (2) The client has agreed to follow the instructions of the veterinarian; (3) The veterinarian is sufficiently acquainted with an animal being treated, whether through examination of the animal or timely visits to the animal's habitat for purposes of assessing the condition in which the animal is kept, to be capable of making a preliminary or general diagnosis of the medical condition of the animal being treated; and (4) The veterinarian is reasonably available for follow-up treatment; B. NMSA 16.25.9.8.3.C. 1- For the purposes of a VFD order, the veterinarian must be licensed in NM and must have been present on the premise for which the VFD order is made, within 6 months prior to each VFD order being issued. NMSA 16.25.9.8.3.C.2-The veterinarian writing a veterinary food directive (VFD) order for premises in New Mexico must be a New Mexico-licensed veterinarian and present on the premises within the six (6) months preceding the issuance of the order. All elements of the federal rules to issue a VFD order must be met and the issuing veterinarian must provide supporting documentation of the visit to the premises including medical records within fourteen (14) days of a request from the board to provide such documentation Definitions of language used in the VFD Directive: A “veterinary feed directive” is a written (nonverbal) statement issued by a licensed veterinarian in the course of the veterinarian’s professional practice that orders the use of a VFD drug or combination VFD drug in or on an animal feed. This written statement authorizes the client (the owner of the animal or animals or other caretaker) to obtain and use animal feed bearing or containing a VFD drug or combination VFD drug to treat the client’s animals only in accordance with the conditions for use approved, conditionally approved, or indexed by the FDA (21 CFR 558.3(b)(7)). A VFD may also be referred to as a VFD order. A “veterinary feed directive (VFD) drug” is a drug intended for use in or on animal feed which is limited by an approved new animal drug application filed pursuant to section 512(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), a conditionally approved application filed pursuant to section 571 of the FD&C Act, or an index listing pursuant to section 572 of the FD&C Act to use under the professional supervision of a licensed veterinarian (21 CFR 558.3(b)(6)). Use of animal feed bearing or containing a VFD drug (VFD feed) must be authorized by a lawful VFD (21 CFR 558.6(a)(1)). A "combination veterinary feed directive (VFD) drug” is a combination new animal drug (as defined in § 514.4(c)(1)(i) intended for use in or on animal feed which is limited by an approved application filed pursuant to section 512(b) of the FD&C Act, a conditionally approved application filed pursuant to section 571 of the FD&C Act, or an index listing pursuant to section 572 of the FD&C Act to use under the professional supervision of a licensed veterinarian, and at least one of the new animal drugs in the combination is a VFD drug. Use of animal feed bearing or containing a combination VFD drug must be authorized by a lawful veterinary feed directive (21 CFR 558.3(b)(12)). If any component drug in an approved, conditionally approved, or indexed combination drug is a VFD drug, the combination drug is a combination VFD drug and its use must comply with the VFD requirements. The expiration date on the VFD specifies the last day the VFD feed can be fed. In other words, a VFD feed or combination VFD feed must not be fed to animals after the expiration date on the VFD (21 CFR 558.6(a) (2)). The “duration of use” and how does it relate to the "expiration date"? The VFD expiration date defines the period of time for which the authorization to feed an animal feed containing a VFD drug is lawful. This period of time may be specified in the approved labeling of a given VFD drug or, if not specified in the labeling, the veterinarian must specify an expiration date for the VFD that does not exceed 6 months (21 CFR 558.6(b)(3)(v)). The duration of use is a separate concept from the expiration date, and determines the length of time, established as part of the approval, conditional approval, or index listing process, that the animal feed containing the VFD drug is allowed to be fed to the animals. This period of time is specified in the labeling of the VFD drug. For example, the currently approved VFD drug tilmicosin has an expiration date of 45 days and a duration of use of 21 days. This means that when the VFD is issued, the client has 45 days to obtain the VFD feed and complete the 21 day course of therapy. It is unlawful to feed the VFD feed to animals after the VFD expiration date or duration of use period (21 CFR 558.6(a)(2)). Client responsibilities: Only feed animal feed bearing or containing a VFD drug or a combination VFD drug (a VFD feed or combination VFD feed) to animals based on a VFD issued by a licensed veterinarian (21 CFR 558.6(a)(1)); feed a VFD feed or combination VFD feed to animals by no later than the expiration date on the VFD (21 CFR 558.6(a)(2))and for only the specified duration of use listed on the VFD; provide a copy of the VFD order to the distributor if the issuing veterinarian sends the distributor’s copy of the VFD through you, the client (21CFR 558.6(b)(8); maintain a copy of the VFD order for a minimum of 2 years (21 CFR 558.6(a)(4)); and provide VFD orders for inspection and copying by FDA upon request (21 CFR 558.6(a)(5)). Frequently Asked Questions: • Can a client feed a VFD feed past the VFD expiration date? No. A VFD feed or combination VFD feed must not be fed to animals after the expiration date on the VFD (21 CFR 558.6(a)(2)). • I have a VFD order that I would like to use to feed a VFD feed, but the order will expire before I can complete the duration of use on the order, what should I do? The client should contact his/her veterinarian to request a new VFD order. A VFD feed or combination VFD feed must not be fed to animals after the expiration date on the VFD (21 CFR 558.6(a)(2)). Cattle drugs currently requiring a VFD: Tilmicosin, florfenicol Cattle drugs which change from over-the-counter sales to use only by veterinary feed directive in 2017: Neomycin, Tylosin, Virginiamycin, Chlortetracycline, Oxytetracycline, Penicillin, Sulfadimethoxine:Ormetoprim, Sulfamerazine, Sulfamethazine This would include virtually all feed drugs except dewormers, carbadox, bambermycins, ionophores, bacitracin and a few others. Summary- If Animal Livestock Production does not show judicious and accountable use of antimicrobials now, then antimicrobials labeled for prevention and control may be targeted and no longer be permitted for use in livestock production.
Hopefully, everyone is getting up to speed on the rapidly approaching changes coming with the veterinary feed directive. I’ve presented on this topic at numerous meetings, and some issues often come up:
The list of medically important antibiotics which will require a VFD in cattle is really quite short: Examples are tylosin, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, neomycin, tilmicosin and chlortetracycline/sulfamethazine (a fixed combination). Concurrent feeding with any other drug must be approved on the VFD, although not as much detail is required for concurrently fed drugs.
Advertising, mouse over for audio
Although the veterinarian does not have to specify the amount of feed which may be purchased by entering this on the VFD, someone must still figure out how much feed the producer may buy under the VFD. This will require cooperation between the distributor of the VFD feed and the producer who will feed the final feed product to animals.
The veterinarian will specify the approximate number of animals to be fed and the rate of grams per ton for the VFD drug. The consumption rate of the cattle will determine the amount of feed to be purchased.
More VFD drug than authorized on the VFD may not be purchased. If feed or the premix to make the feed are left over after the VFD expires, then the VFD product may still be possessed, but may not be fed again until a VFD is in effect.
In the case of chlortetracycline and oxytetracycline, some of the feed regimens on the label are mg of drug given per pound of animal body weight per day. In this case, the veterinarian must first use the estimated feed intake of the cattle, along with their body weight, to determine the grams per ton in the final feed. This may need to be specified for different weight ranges and anticipated feed intakes where variation is likely to occur during the VFD effective period. Communication among the veterinarian, producer and VFD drug distributor has never been more important.
Free-choice feeds are also causing some confusion. Since the formulation of free-choice feeds determines the intake, only approved formulations may be fed. For loose mineral, there is only one publicly approved mineral formulation containing chlortetracycline for control of active cases of anaplasmosis. The formulation may be manufactured by any business, including non-licensed feed mills. The “blue bird label” for this formulation may be viewed on the blue bird label page of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine.
To produce anything other than this publicly available formulation requires an FDA-approved formulation and must be produced by a licensed feed mill. If you have been using a mineral with chlortetracycline, check that it is an approved formulation and if you will be able to have it authorized by a VFD starting in 2017. You may find that your local distributor isn’t sure and he or she needs to check for you.
You will be able to purchase the type A chlortetracycline (CTC) products (the most concentrated form, containing 50 or 90 grams of CTC per pound) without a VFD because it is not a feed under the regulatory definition of feed; therefore, it is a medicated feed article and not a medicated feed. However, although you will be able to buy and possess the type A chlortetracycline product without a VFD, you will not be able to legally feed it without a VFD.
Be aware that some distributors are considering requiring purchasers to sign a form indicating they understand they must have a VFD to feed the type A chlortetracycline medicated feed article, and will have a valid VFD in place before they feed it. Attempting to bypass the VFD regulations by buying the type A chlortetracycline medicated feed article and not obtaining a VFD when feeding it is a really, really bad idea. It’s bad for the industry, and bad for anyone doing it when the FDA shows up and asks to see the VFD that goes along with the drug that has been purchased. Mike Apley, DVM, Ph.D., is a professor in clinical sciences at Kansas State University in Manhattan.
Very unusual feeder cattle markets have developed this fall. The calf and stocker market has been sharply divided from the market for heavy feeder cattle. The attached summary in Table 1 shows prices, values and value of gain for steer prices in Oklahoma in the past five weeks.
Table 1 shows a marked contrast in calf prices from 400-550 and for feeders 600 pounds and up. For the lightweight calves, the price drop from 400 to 550 pounds (column 3) is a fairly typical price rollback, about 9-10 percent. In contrast, from 600 to 850 pounds, there is virtually no change in price…no rollback. In fact, the price of 600 pound steers is slightly less than heavier animals up to 850 pounds. A lack of feedlot and stocker demand for the middle weights is leaving prices for 550 to 750 pound steers low relative to the lighter and heavier animals on either side. As a result, the incremental value of additional weight is significantly higher at weights over 600 pounds (column 5) resulting in sharply higher value of gain at heavier weights (column 6). The general signal in this market is for cattle to remain in the country for additional weight gain before entering feedlots at heavy weights. The current two-part feeder market has implications for cow-calf and stocker producers. Retained ownership may be attractive for cow-calf producers depending on calf weaning weights and management flexibility. At 450 pounds, the value of the first 100 or 150 pounds is relatively low because of the price rollback. Thus the initial value of gain is less than $1.00/lb. up to 600 pounds (column 6). However, additional weight beyond 600 pounds captures the higher value of gain and brings up the average or cumulative value of gain for weights up to 850 pounds (column 8). Thus, the retained decision may depend on how much additional weight can be added to the calves. For heavier weaning weights…say 600 pounds…the value of gain is high immediately for weights up to 850 pounds (column 9)
Not only does the current market suggest stocker opportunities in general but also that the best buying opportunities are for animals somewhat heavier than typically purchased for winter grazing. The sharp price rollback (low initial value of gain) for 450 pound stockers is less attractive than buying animals at 550 pounds or heavier. For example, Table 1 shows that a 550 pound steer can be bought for less than $35/head more than a 500 pound steer (column 5). Buying those pounds results in immediately higher value of gain compared to starting at lighter weights. Of course, it depends on how long the animals will be owned and how much total weight gain is desired or possible. The lightweight steers eventually generate value of gain over $1.00/pound if enough weight is added (column 8). Of the total increase in value for 400 pounds of gain starting at 450 pounds, 43 percent occurs in the first 200 pounds of gain while 57 percent of the increased value occurs in the second 200 pounds of gain (column 5). Stocker producers should actively evaluate the best buy for stockers relative to planned production and avoid buying the same weight as usual out of habit.
The price patterns in Table 1 are unusual but have been very persistent this fall. Nevertheless, the current feeder price pattern is an anomaly that will likely be corrected as arbitrage opportunities are exploited. By itself, that realignment of feeder prices will only help the value of retained calves or stockers because the value of the middle weight animals will rise relative to the light and heavy weight feeders. Of course that takes time and overall market risk is a different issue that must be considered as well.
Source: Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist
About 300 million male chicks born to egg laying hens are killed each year. (Reuters File Photo)
All chickens are not born equal. Some are bred for size — the
bigger the better, destined to be roasted and toasted, oiled and
broiled, shaked and baked and sliced and diced en route to their
ultimate demise at your dinner table.
Others are bred to be lean, mean, egg-laying machines that push out hundreds of eggs each year.
But those scrawny, too-small-to-eat male chickens — about 302 million egg-layers producing over 80 billion eggs a year in the U.S. — have created a problem for egg producers.
In order to maintain the supply of egg-laying hens, some of those 80
billion eggs must be fertilized, incubated and allowed to hatch. But the
moment those adorable chicks break out of their eggs, about half of
them just aren't useful.
Male chicks born to egg-laying hen breeds are unsuitable for meat,
and only a select few are needed to keep the species going. The rest of
the males — about 300 million of them nationwide — might be
adorable...but they're useless to egg farmers. So they're immediately
swept up and gassed, suffocated or, more often than not, tossed into a
grinding machine.
It’s called culling, and it's not only upsetting to animal rights activists around the globe— it’s very expensive.
But it wouldn’t have to happen if there were a way of knowing whether that chicken-to-be inside an egg is male or female.
The United Egg Producers announced last summer that it hoped to end
culling "by 2020 or as soon as it is commercially available and
economically feasible."
And now the problem may be close to a solution.
According to NPR, an Austin, Texas, egg company called Vital Farms, in partnership with an Israeli company called Novatrans,
has found a way to determine the sex of an embryo inside an egg by
analyzing the chemical makeup of gases that leak from its pores.
Two days after a hen lays an egg, before it enters the incubation
chamber, “We are able to trap the gas and read whether it's male,
female, or infertile, and do it in a matter of seconds," says Vital
Farms CEO Matt O'Hayer.
At that point, since it takes 21 days of incubation for an egg to
develop into a chick, the eggs containing male embryos can still be sold
for eating.
In Canada, meanwhile, a McGill University scientist named Michael
Ngadia, with funding from Egg Farmers of Ontario, is developing a method
of determining the sex of a chicken embryo by shining light through the
egg.
"It's kind of like when you candle eggs," EFO general manager Harry Pelissero told the CBC,
referring to the practice of holding an egg in front of a candle to
look for blood vessels that indicate whether the egg is fertilized.
"There is a light that passes through [the egg], and we're able to
determine whether it's male or female."
With the expanded application of these dual technologies, the United
Egg Producers may be able to move up its deadline. Vital Farms and
Novatrans say they should have a commercial version of their invention
up and running within a year, and Pelissero says he believes the
Canadian technique could be commercialized by next spring.