Deanne Fulawka, a researcher from the University of Manitoba, presented her team’s findings at the Manitoba Sustainable Protein Research Symposium in Winnipeg July 7.

A main point of the study was to get local projections on how implants could impact emissions on Canadian cow-calf operations.

The study modelled scenarios for 130 calves. Under the simulated exercise, calves would have received hormonal implants at 30 days old. Results were then compared with 130 simulated unimplanted calves.

Local farm conditions across south-central, southwestern and Parkland regions of the province were plugged into the model. Fulawka’s team estimated greenhouse gas emissions for the three regions using Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Holos model.

Ammonia projections were based on simulated manure outputs using Canadian research on beef feed intake, manure practices, body weight and temperature. Regional crop yields, estimated dry matter intake and water needs were taken into account.

The hypothetical revenue producers would get from those cattle was based on prices at local auction marts.

Numbers for birth and weaning weights and average daily gain were based on a 2015 South Dakota State University study, which used Angus and Angus-Limousin cross bull calves. It found that when calves born in March and April received their implants in May, their weaning weight increased by an average of 29 pounds compared to untreated calves. The calves from mature cows gained more than calves from younger cows.

Based on a price of $616 per hundredweight, the Manitoba study estimated that revenue at weaning for its hypothetical calves was $135.80 greater per implanted calf compared to untreated calves.

Total emissions were similar between implanted and non-implanted calves. For example, ammonia emissions for implanted calves were only 0.04 per cent lower.

However, due to the higher weight of implanted calves, the greenhouse gas intensity, measured as kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of live weight was 3.72 per cent lower when implants were used.

Implants didn’t change how much land was needed for production of feed (including pasture) or water. Again, however, landuse intensity (hectare per kilogram of live weight) and water use (litre per kilogram of live weight) decreased by 3.92 per cent due to higher live weight when calves were marketed.

“There is an economic benefit to the producer, but we also want to send home that message that there is also environmental impact,” said Fulawka.

Fulawka noted that South Dakota researchers compared calves implanted at 30 days to calves implanted at weaning, which is when many producers would be implanting their calves. They found that later-implanted calves caught up to those implanted at 30 days and finished at similar weights.

She said Canadian beef producers have set a goal to reduce emissions, adding that every best management practice that is added will get the sector closer to that goal.

The Canadian Cattle Association has set a target to reduce primary production greenhouse gas emission intensity by 33 per cent by 2030, according to its website.

It’s estimated that fewer than 30 per cent of producers in the cow-calf sector use implants, which makes this an area of significant opportunity to improve economic and environmental outcomes, Fulawka’s report said.

The post Calf hormone implants can give environmental, financial wins appeared first on Grainews.

The afternoon temperature was also on the minds of growers across Saskatchewan and Alberta, worried about heat blast in their canola crops.

In mid-July, some of those farmers were texting or calling their ag sales reps to ask about products that can minimize the damage from heat stress.

“At this time of year, we get a massive amount of e-mails on the website, and phones (of sales reps) are blowing up the last few days,” said Bonnett, the Canadian commercial lead for biologicals at Corteva AgriScience.

“We get (phone calls and texts) the day before it gets hot.”

Many of those farmers want information about X-Cyte, a growth hormone product from Stoller, a company Corteva bought last year.

“When temperatures rise in your crop, the growth hormone cytokinin begins to degrade within your plants, often resulting in flower abortion and pod loss,” says the Stoller website.

“X-Cyte is a foliar application of cytokinin designed to restore the hormone balance within your crop and safeguard your yield during the hot summer months.”

Something that reduces heat blast and preserves canola yield sounds great, but farmers lack information on when to apply the product.

At AIM, a canola grower asked Bonnett about X-Cyte and wanted to apply it the next day.

The interest from farmers is great, but the middle of a heat wave is the wrong time to apply the foliar product, Bonnett said.

“We need to get it on before (the hot weather).”

Bonnett’s story represents a larger challenge within Canada’s crop sector. Dozens of new products, such as biostimulants and plant growth promotants, are now available to growers. However, most farmers don’t know when, or how, to use them.

“The biggest knowledge gap is, ‘Where do I put these, when are they going to work well?’” Bonnett says.

“Transparently, I don’t think we have enough people out there to educate guys…. Here’s a tool that you use for this particular problem… (but) you’ve got to know when to use it.”

Not the same

Another issue is definitions and how the products are described.

Most growers are familiar with plant growth regulators, but biostimulants are not the same.

“Plant growth regulators are defined as synthetic compounds … that mimic naturally occurring plant hormones,” says a 2023 paper in Frontiers of Plant Science.

“Biostimulants usually are complex mixtures containing organic (example, extracts of seaweed) …. microbial (fungi and bacteria)…. They enhance plant growth and health by stimulating natural processes at a minute quantity.”

Grower education remains a challenge, but sales data indicates that farmers are curious. They are experimenting and want to know if these products will work on their farm.

“In a year like this year, we have excess moisture in some areas and a lack of moisture in (other) areas…. The one thing that really matters is root growth,” said Jesse Hamonic, vice-president and country head for Nutrien Ag Solutions.

Speaking also from the shade at AIM, Hamonic said his company is seeing strong sales of Radiate.

“It’s a growth stimulant for the roots. It’s been around for several years now,” he says.

“This year, we’re going to set a record on Radiate.”

Corteva is also enjoying a period of strong growth for biostimulants and other products that preserve plant health.

“Year over year … it’s in the double digits,” Bonnett says.

“Guys are interested in trying it. Once they figure out the value proposition and what problem they’re trying to solve, I think it will grow even more.”

Corteva and Nutrien Ag Solutions were just two of the firms at Ag In Motion promoting plant health stimulants to Canadian farmers.

The market is busy and may soon get busier, because companies expect to launch more products.

From Corteva’s standpoint, Bonnett says several are in the pipeline with prospects for commercialization in the years to come, “all attacking a different problem we have out here (in Canada).”

The post Farmer interest growing in plant biostimulants appeared first on Grainews.

But they also criticized tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump on metal imports and a threat he has made to target EU cars and car parts.

The European Parliament voted by 457-140, with 71 abstentions, in favour of a plan to allow U.S. farmers a larger share of an existing 45,000-tonne quota from 2020.

The vote came with a resolution urging the removal of U.S. tariffs on EU steel and aluminum, and the withdrawal of Trump’s threat to raise tariffs on EU cars.

The agreement on beef is designed to settle a dispute that dates back to 1981 when the EU banned the use of growth hormones in meat across the 28-nation bloc, including in imports.

The EU and the United States eventually concluded an agreement in 2009 to grant a quota for hormone-free beef imports, which currently stands at 45,000 tonnes.

However, under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, the quota also had to be made available to non-U.S. suppliers.

Exporters from Australia and Uruguay, and more recently Argentina, decided to sell into the quota, pushing the U.S. share from nearly 100 per cent to 30.

“The message is clear”

Under the revised deal, to which the other countries had to agree, U.S. farmers will gain an initial 18,500 tonnes of the quota, rising to 35,000 tonnes after seven years.

“The message of this agreement is clear: we would like to de-escalate trade tensions with the U.S, but we want to see the same efforts of de-escalation on the other side of the Atlantic,” Bernd Lange, the head of parliament’s trade committee, said in a statement.

The EU lawmakers also called on Washington to work with Brussels to find a solution to a long-running dispute over subsidies to planemakers which has led to WTO cases against Airbus and Boeing.

The WTO awarded the United States the right in the Airbus case in October to impose tariffs on US$7.5 billion of EU imports. It choose to apply them to French wine, Scottish and Irish whiskies, olives and cheese from across the continent.

The EU expects the WTO to grant it the right to retaliate in the Boeing subsidies case early next year.

The lawmakers also passed a resolution criticizing the United States over its blocking of appointments to the WTO’s Appellate Body. The body rules on trade disputes between WTO members and its impending paralysis could end a 25-year-old system to settle trade conflicts.

— Reporting for Reuters by Philip Blenkinsop in Brussels.

The post EU lawmakers clear U.S. beef imports but fault U.S. tariffs appeared first on Grainews.

The Commission, which negotiates on behalf of the 28 EU nations, said it would open formal talks in the coming days on increasing the U.S. share of an existing 45,000-tonne quota. It concerns beef that has not been treated with certain growth hormones.

The Commission said it would do so in the coming days.

The beef issue is not part of EU-U.S. talks designed to improve transatlantic trade ties and remove tariffs on industrial goods following an agreement by U.S. President Donald Trump not to impose import duties on EU cars.

“Nevertheless, finding a mutually beneficial solution to our longstanding dispute over beef would be a major step forward in improving our trade cooperation,” the Council, which speaks on behalf of the EU’s members, said.

The dispute dates back to 1981 when the European Union banned the use of growth hormones in meat across the bloc, including imports, prompting a U.S. complaint at the World Trade Organization.

The EU and the U.S. eventually concluded an agreement in 2009 to grant a quota for hormone-free beef imports. However, under WTO rules, the quota also had to be made available to non-U.S. suppliers.

The U.S. share of that quota has slipped to less than 30 per cent in the year to the end of June, according to the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF). Australia and Uruguay, and more recently Argentina, have steadily increased their shares.

The Commission may also need to negotiate with them to ensure that they accept lower shares of the quotas.

— Reporting for Reuters by Philip Blenkinsop.

The post EU clear to start talks to increase U.S. beef imports appeared first on Grainews.

Most of these branded or niche programs are trying to differentiate themselves from traditional beef production practices. If as a producer you are interested, get the actual details of the specific branded program and find out the necessary extra work involved, including record-keeping. Finally with the extra record-keeping and potential production losses inherent with some production methods, determine the premium you need to stay in that market. These programs definitely create extra input costs and there can be higher returns, but what is the net profit at the end of the day for you?

There can be good and bad aspects in these programs from a veterinary perspective. You as the producer have the final decision as to whether marketing into the branded program will benefit your herd and its bottom-line.

Antibiotic free

Some of the more rigid programs call for antibiotic-free cattle and that means just that. If antibiotics are used for some treatment during the calf’s life then that calf is out of the program. All medical treatments whether prophylactic, metaphylactic or for actual medical cases are usually considered the same. This eliminates all antibiotics in the feed as well as prophylactic treatments. Meat withdrawal periods have been established for all these products which producers adhere to so the product is still safe.

The antibiotic-free programs cater to the public perception that antibiotic usage is undesirable. Technically all raised beef is free of antibiotics if proper withdrawal times are recognized. The authorities in Canada place products such as rumensin, an ionophore, in the same category as antibiotics even though there are no meat withdrawal limitations.

• From the Canadian Cattlemen: Strong demand for direct-marketed, grass-fed beef

Not being able to use a product such as rumensin in a feeding program worries me as we could see increases in conditions like coccidiosis in cattle and of course, feed efficiency is decreased as well.

The good thing about this program is that without reliance on antibiotics it instills the maximum use of good quality vaccines to prevent disease and a soft or fenceline-weaning program done at home to reduce mainly bovine respiratory disease in recently weaned calves.

The antibiotic-free requirement follows through to the packer so if any medication is given in the production chain where necessary the calf again drops out of the program.

Animal welfare needs are often addressed in these programs calling for use of treatments such as painkillers given at castration and other procedures. These also have a withdrawal period that must be adhered to. My one worry is about delay in treatment. If antibiotics get held off for a day or two extra to see if the calf gets over the problem, it could lead to more deaths or chronic cases. Only the individual producer would know if that has happened. When a calf drops out of an antibiotic free program they are marketed as a normal calf.

Preconditioning

Some programs insist on a true preconditioning program that means a minimum period between weaning day and marketing day — 30 to 60 days is common. This of course has great benefits in the feedlot as calves on a good vaccination program and weaned for that length of time are much less likely to get sick. Also by waiting the 60 days or longer, calves are gaining very well so this results in more pounds to sell. Shrink is minimized then on transport.

Speaking of transport that can be a big win as with these branded programs calves are most often shipped directly to their final destination also minimizing extra transport costs and stress of going through an auction market. Both of these are great management wins.

In the old days, the best returns for the cow-calf operator were generally to wean right off the cow with no vaccines or input costs incurred by the cow-calf operator. From a health, stress and shrink aspect, this is the worse thing you could do to this young calf. These calves were considered by most veterinarian standards high risk to ultra high risk depending on their weight and distance transported.

No added hormones

“No added hormones” primarily refers to no implanting. This decision must be looked at from an economic standpoint. Every time a male calf is implanted after castration or a heifer calf implanted there are extra gains created without a doubt.

All implants have a zero withdrawal for slaughters so are very safe. Calves can receive implants up to three to four times until slaughter. This depends on how young calves are implanted and target weight at marketing.

Every time an implant is not given, pounds of gain are lost. This is fine as long as in these HF (hormone free or no added hormones) programs the selling price more than compensates for this loss. A lot of producers of course don’t implant their heifers so they would fit the program anyway and if bull calves are castrated at an older age you get the gains from their natural hormones. Castration at an older age comes with a bit more risk and if we follow the beef code of practice in the future NSAID’s (anti-inflammatory) drugs will need to be given.

All these conditions need to be considered. The HF programs are a specialty market and one that consumers think they want.

I won’t go into detail on the proven safety of implants here, but it all comes down to economics and what premium the producer will get from not implanting. I have heard some say by not implanting they need an extra 20 per cent return in order to make up the net difference that implants provide.

Record-keeping

All these programs rely on the RFID tags traceability and documentation of records showing what treatments have been given to the cattle. Again this requirement enhances management and attention to detail.

As far as anthelmintics (dewormers), most are allowed in most of the programs — even the organic ones — as long as proper withdrawals are adhered.

Each program is different so always double check. Once treatment is done, it may be too late to go back.

Without the treatments for internal and external parasites including warbles there is no doubt we would have a high infection rate and reduced productivity as a result, so it is important they remain in treatment protocols.

Improved management

The branded programs have been good in the fact producers’ management has been heightened. In other ways, especially the “no added hormones” requirement, can result in productivity losses.

There are pros and cons in all “branded beef” type programs, but they all help to increase the profile of beef and expand markets. The future will tell how sustainable they are in the long term and whether there is the need to change requirements to reflect the best needs of the cattle and still get the producer the returns they deserve.

The post Branded beef pros and cons appeared first on Grainews.

If you had to pull a heifer’s calf, this may disrupt the normal bonding process. If you take a newborn cold calf to the barn to warm and dry it before the mother has a chance to lick it, this may also disrupt bonding.

“One technique that helps facilitate proper maternal response is smearing birth fluids across the muzzle and tongue of the dam following an assisted delivery,” says Joe Stookey, a researcher with the Western College of Veterinary Medicine, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

“This seems to jump-start the maternal response,” he says. “Simply pulling the newborn to the front of the mother may not be sufficient stimulus to trigger maternal behaviour, especially for some first-calf heifers. Pouring feed onto a newborn calf may also entice some reluctant mothers to approach the calf and eventually come in contact with birth fluids as they eat the feed. Any attractant that can stimulate the cow to lick the calf would be useful.”

If a heifer is not interested in her calf, help him nurse. The act of nursing (which triggers release of oxytocin — the hormone that stimulates uterine contractions and milk let-down) makes a cow or heifer feel more motherly. You may have to restrain the cow (at least the first time) for the nursing, so she won’t run off or kick the calf.

Oxytocin is associated with maternal behaviour. “If you can stimulate milk let-down a few times by assisting the calf in nursing, the hormone comes on board and improves maternal behaviour,” says Stookey. “Oxytocin can switch off the heifer’s aggression, reluctance or fear, and turn it into interest and mothering.” These hormones can completely change a heifer’s attitude.

DIFFICULT CASES

Some cases are more difficult. Sometimes a heifer is stubborn about accepting her new calf or may viciously attacks it. You may need to keep her from injuring or killing her calf. If she’s in a barn or pen she may slam him into the wall or fence. She may be very interested in her calf; her instincts tell her this is something very important and she must deal with him, but she’s not sure how. She smells him and starts bellowing and rooting him around — butting him with her head if he moves or tries to get up. She may knock him down when he tries to stand. She’s on the fight, ready to protect this new calf from anything and everything, but she’s confused and focuses all that aggression toward it.

From the Canadian Cattlemen website: Late weaning

Usually if you stay out of sight and monitor the situation, the heifer figures it out. The best clue she’s on her way to becoming a good mother is if she furiously licks the calf and moos at him even as she knocks him around. She just needs more time to transmit a motherly attitude in the right direction to encourage him to nurse instead of rooting him around.

By contrast, if a heifer is NOT licking her calf, and merely knocking him around, you’ll have to intervene. If she ignores him except when he moves — charges at him and starts knocking him into a fence or wall — you’ll have to rescue the calf. The heifer needs to be restrained so she can’t hurt the calf (or you), as you help the calf nurse.

Sometimes after the calf nurses, the aggressive heifer simmers down and starts to mother him, but it may take several supervised nursings (with the calf safe in a penned-off area between nursings so she can’t hurt him) until she changes her mind. You can usually make any heifer raise her calf, but it may take up to two to three supervised nursings, and hobbles on the heifer.

If a cow won’t mother her calf, you may be able to kick-start her protective instincts and change her mind by bringing a dog into the pen. The urge to protect a calf from predators is so strong that this will often get a cow excited and upset about the dog. She will think about the calf and want to protect him. This may help her develop an interest in the calf and she’ll start to mother it.

Heather Smith Thomas ranches with her husband Lynn near Salmon, Idaho. Contact her at 208-756-2841.

The post Bonding tips for reluctant mothers appeared first on Grainews.