Lawrence MacAulay, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, announced the three-year, $3-million initiative on March 6. It will be delivered by AAFC in partnership with the Privy Council Office’s Impact Canada. The PMWI aims to bring forward collaborative solutions that use creative, data-based approaches to help improve the wellbeing of producers; reduce the stigma around mental health in agriculture; raise awareness; and offer the support producers need, when they need it.

“Our producers do so much for us — often making personal sacrifices so they can deliver their top-quality products,” said MacAulay in a press release. “Their mental health should not be something they have to sacrifice. Through this new initiative, we’re giving Canadians an opportunity to come up with new solutions for producer mental wellbeing that will help reduce stigma and improve access to tailored support.”

The PMWI is now open for application intake until June 3, 2025. For-profit organizations, not-for-profit organizations and individuals registered to do business in Canada are encouraged to apply.

The initiative will use a three-stage approach to move innovators through the process of proposing, developing and implementing their solutions. At each stage, a jury, made up of subject matter experts, will recommend which innovative solutions move to the next stage and receive funding. Two grand prize winners will ultimately receive up to $500,000 each to scale their solutions, grow their impact and increase the potential to support the wellbeing of more producers across the country.

Key stressors for producers include climate change, isolation, stigma and the physical and emotional demands of farming, says the PMWI website. Anxiety, depression and stress from financial uncertainty, weather unpredictability and the unique pressures of managing farm operations were also cited as significant mental health challenges faced by farmers.

The post New initiative to promote farmer mental health launched appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Last week A&W Canada announced a new meat-free burger, touted as just as good as ground beef.

It has partnered up with Beyond Meat, a company that’s attracted capital from sources such as Microsoft mogul Bill Gates and A-list actor Leonardo Dicaprio. Come July 9 it is promising a national rollout for the new meatless alternative, which is already generating a lot of buzz.

Food critics say the burger is a dramatic improvement over the existing option, which Toronto Star food writer Amy Pataki described as a “rubbery disc of rice and mushrooms.” When testing the new option, she reported a product that looked, smelled — and even sounded — like a beef burger as it sizzled on the grill. Apparently it tasted like one too.

The new option is made from plant-based products including peas and mung beans and is coloured with beet juice to ensure pinkish juices leak from it.

This is just the latest salvo in the war over the ubiquitous hamburger. Many other companies are beginning to push options that could replace ground beef, ranging from plant-based proteins to lab-grown beef that’s genetically and culinarily indistinguishable from the real deal.

The lab-grown meats are an interesting — and concerning for livestock farmers — case study.

The first Petri dish burger hit the plate in August of 2013, at a news conference in Britain. Researchers demonstrated the technology but admitted it came with a whopping price tag of US$325,000 for the prototype, causing many to scoff that beef was in no imminent danger.

However, that ignored the economics of prototyping any product. The first widget of any type always involves hefty research and development costs and other one-time-only costs. It’s once the process is up and running that costs fall precipitously until something is suddenly affordable to all.

We’ve seen this pattern repeatedly in everything from cars to computers, and it seems the remorseless economics of commercialization are in action again.

Less than two years later, in April of 2015, the Smithsonian Institute’s website was touting lab-grown burgers had already got “… a $324,989 price cut.” In 20 months they’d got the cost per patty down to just US$11.

That still wasn’t going to drive McDonald’s out of business, but it did cause big companies to sit up and take notice.

Since then there’s been a flood of capital into the sector, including money from big food companies that seem to see the writing on the wall.

In April of 2017 Cargill was selling off the last of its cattle feedlots, saying it was freeing up capital to invest in alternatives like insect- and plant-based proteins.

That same year Tyson Foods, the largest meat producer in the U.S., announced it was part of a US$55-million round of investment in Beyond Meat, the producer of the A&W patties.

Other investors in the emerging sector include British entrepreneur Richard Branson, the food giant Nestle, and even our own Maple Leaf Foods. Nestle has publicly predicted that by 2020 plant-based foods will grow to become a US$5-billion market in America.

Most of the companies making these investments point to the fact meat alternatives are one of the fastest-growing food segments and are becoming impossible to ignore. They’re not turning their backs on meat, but they’re not doubling down on it either, in the face of shifting consumer sentiment.

If meat alternatives continue to grow in popularity, it could serve to undermine the economics of traditional animal protein, which depends on using as much as humanly possible of every animal slaughtered.

For now at least the alternative protein sources seem to be concentrating on the lower end of the market — burgers, hotdogs and similar processed items.

That’s a problem because while consumers might still be willing to spring for that steak or roast, the market for the off cuts appears to be drying up.

If these alternatives do take off, livestock producers will have to think long and hard about how they want to position their products in the market.

Right now many appear to be counting on the ‘yuck factor’ that will discourage consumers because they feel a lab-grown alternative is unnatural.

Having ready alternatives will, however, make for some interesting dynamics. The animal welfare question becomes even more important if, for example, a consumer can choose ‘chicken’ that’s never even been introduced to a living bird, much less seen the inside of a barn.

In that kind of market consumers can vote with their wallets with unnoticeable changes to their own consumption patterns.

There’s clearly both a growing demand and emerging supply and farmers need to figure out how to get their piece of this pie.

If they don’t they may find themselves watching the feast.

The post Editorial: Mystery meat appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Do you have the time to heat detect or do you want timed breeding? Cost is a consideration, as timed artificial insemination programs require more financial commitment and more passes through the chute.

We will explore three main synchronization programs that I personally find the most successful. There are numerous options available now, and your veterinarian or semen sales rep may have programs they recommend. Also, talk to neighbours to see which programs they have had success with.

The key is to have one that is not too complicated, and to write the protocol down so nothing is left to chance. Success depends on dealing with all the details and following the protocols as closely as possible.

With any synchronization program, cows and heifers must be in good health and have a sound nutritional program. All the factors that lead to a high conception rate with natural breeding are the same ones that must be incorporated into a synchronization program.

Synchronization is not a substitute for poor management.

Heifers must be at two-thirds of mature weight in order to breed. Adequate energy and trace minerals must be in the ration. A good body condition score of 2.5-3.5 is necessary. Have the cattle vaccinated for the reproductive diseases that are in your area (such as BVD and IBR). Recently calved cows should be gaining weight on a rising plane of nutrition and be at least 60 days postpartum. If the semen is of high quality, the only thing left is to fine-tune the synchronization programs, so please read on.

If labour is not an issue and the skill level for heat detection is high, the original program of two shots of prostaglandin is still very effective. The two shots are given 10 days apart and cattle are observed very closely for heats for two to five days after the second shot, and then bred accordingly.

Most prostaglandins, including the commonly used one estrumate, have a two-cc dosage. Always, always, give these products with a long needle (at least 1.5 inches) as you must get this low-dosage product deep into the muscle. It is preferable to use the neck muscles for all these injected products.

The only other slight variation to this program I use is when a producer wants to observe and breed off heats picked up after the first shot of prostaglandin. If they are cycling well previously, approximately 70 per cent of the cows will cycle in the first several days after the first shot. Any that aren’t bred after the 10 days are then given the second shot.

This cuts your cost but increases labour as you are breeding over a longer period of time.

An excellent program — but only for heifers — is the MGA (megesterol acetate) program. MGA is a progesterone compound, which was primarily used in feedlots to keep heifers from cycling. Heifers are fed 0.5 mg/hd/day for 14 days (most feed mills will have this mixed in a small amount of grain or in pellet form, making it easy to administer the proper amount). This is fed for 14 days exactly and then stopped. Since the progesterone source is removed, almost all of the heifers will come into heat in two to six days.

A big word of caution here is this is NOT a fertile heat. We then go in with a prostaglandin shot (remember the dosage difference), 19 days after the removal of the MGA. The heifers will be in standing heat two to five days after the injection and are then bred according to heat or are all AI’ed in 72 hours. This program does not work on cows even when a higher dosage of MGA was used, so do not under any circumstances use this program on cows. The results are way too inconsistent.

The advantage of the MGA program is that the cost is reduced and only two passes through the chute are required (when we count the one pass to AI them).

With any of these programs one could use natural breeding, but bull power is critical as many more animals are cycling over a short period of time. Natural breeding will work with fertile bulls in small breeding groups. The MGA program (if you do the math) needs to be started 33 days (just over one month) before you wish to breed the first heifer. Some larger producers will synchronize their heifers in two groups to avoid a large number of heifers calving very close together.

The last program involves the use of CIDR (controlled internal drug release) and fixed timed AI (where all cattle on the program are bred at a specific time). The advantage is that labour and management are put to efficient use. If hiring a technician, the whole group is AI’ed together.

CIDR is a vaginal implant, which releases a controlled amount of progesterone daily. There are probably 15 different programs using CIDR out in the industry today. I will outline one that I feel gives good results and is the easiest to follow.

On Day 0, the cattle are run through the chute and the CIDR placed in the vagina and they are given a shot of GnRH. There are several brand names of GnRH on the market including, but not limited to, Fertagyl, Cystorelin, and Fertilene. These GnRH products will get a follicular wave started and the CIDRs will induce cyclicity on those cows.

The string tail is often clipped off when used on heifers so they aren’t pulled out. Tuck the tail neatly inside the vulval lips. On Day 7, the CIDRs are removed and a prostaglandin is given at the regular dosage. The animals are given a second shot of GnRH at the time of AI (which is for heifers 54 hours plus or minus two hours). This means you don’t synchronize more than you can comfortably AI in two to three hours.

The real advantage of this program is the timed AI. The sacrifices are it is a more expensive program and the cattle are run through the chute a total of three times, including the one to inseminate them. Some will separately AI those heifers, which cycle real early or re-AI’ing those which come in standing heat after the timed AI. Although a bit more work, this will help to boost conception rates.

All three programs have merit. Ask your veterinarian which one he/she would recommend for your circumstances. The goal is getting as high a conception rate as possible in as short a period of time.

Conception rates with all these programs depend on attention to detail but should be very close to those achieved by breeding off of natural heats. We often say 50 per cent to be conservative but others approach 70 per cent.

Hopefully breeding season goes well and if contemplating synchronization, discuss it with your herd veterinarian.

The post Attention to detail is key in a synchronization program appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Garlinski, who farms southwest of Grandview near the border of Riding Mountain National Park, says predation is a serious concern on his operation and claims bear baiting contributes to the problem.

Garlinski runs his cattle largely on private land, although baiting occurs on the Crown lands surrounding his property through hunting season. Much of that bait is excess from nearby restaurants and contains meat or animal byproducts.

“We’ve been seeing that when these guys finish their bear baiting and their hunting, that we have a big flood of bears moving out and mingling with our livestock. We’ve lost calves and we can’t find them,” he said, pointing to bears’ tendency to drag off their kills.

Alberta’s Rancher’s Guide to Predator Attacks on Livestock notes that bears may prefer to feed on kills in a more protected area.

Garlinski has taken up the issue with the Manitoba Beef Producers. The Grandview-area producer sponsored a motion during the most recent round of beef producer membership meetings, asking MBP to push the government into banning the use of meat and animal fat as bait on agricultural Crown lands.

What does the province say on bear baiting?

Baiting is unique to hunting wolf and bear, and the Manitoba government requires all baits to be labelled with a hunter’s name and address.

The 2017 Manitoba Hunting Guide allows up to 100 kilograms of meat or fish in baits, although none of that may be livestock heads, hooves, hides, mammary glands or internal organs.

The same rules forbid baiting within 200 metres of a road or dwelling, 500 metres of a cottage development or Crown land picnic shelter or 100 metres of Riding Mountain National Park.

In terms of Crown lands, baits in the Riding Mountain area can’t be put up sooner than two weeks before hunting season and must be gone within five days of the season’s end.

Manitoba Sustainable Develop­ment says hunting is one of the main means it controls bear populations and that, “desired harvest levels cannot be achieved without the ability of hunters to use bait.”

“Most bear hunters like to hunt in secluded areas away from others, and where their activities cause little disturbance to other Crown land users,” a spokesperson said over email. “The department has no evidence to suggest that the use of bait in general, and specifically the use of meat for bait, with the restrictions that Manitoba has in place, increases black bear depredation on livestock.”

Garlinski disagrees. Sur­viv­ing bears do not leave just because the baits are removed, he said. Instead, he argues, baiting with animal fat or meat has signalled that there is meat in the area.

While it’s difficult to say how many of their losses are bear kills (coyotes and wolves are also predation threats in the area), Garlinski estimates between 15-20 calves are killed by predators each year.

“We have quite a few losses in the spring due to bears just for the simple fact that that’s about the time when the bears do come out and everything,” he said. “During the wintertime is when we find quite a bit of the wolf activities.”

Cliff Trinder, another beef producer in the RM of Russell, agreed that bear baiting could make predation worse if done improperly.

At the same time, he said, he has used bear baiting on his own land to draw bears away from cattle to reduce predation.

“Done right, it can be very effective in controlling the location of the bears and it can be very effective in reducing the numbers, but it’s got to be done properly,” he said.

Trinder brought in a licensed predator reduction outfit to control his bear problem several years ago. Since then, he said, his losses have dropped from upwards of 17 animals a year to one or two.

“I don’t know how you’re going to regulate it because you’ve got to have co-operation with the landowner… that’s simple common sense and I guess what you could ask as part of the licensing system, you may ask the outfitters or the people doing the baiting to work actively with the landowners or the cattle operators.”

Garlinski’s motion received broad support from beef producers gathered in Roblin at the beginning of November. It will join other member motions at this year’s Manitoba Beef Producers AGM Feb. 8-9 in Brandon.

The post Producers push for tighter bear-baiting rules appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The body will have members from both the Manitoba Organic Alliance (MOA) and Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (MASC).

“There’s definite improvements that need to be made, so we want to know what the timeline on that is,” MOA president Kate Storey said. “Can we do those improvements now? Do we have to wait until there’s a certain number of organic acres?”

MASC introduced organic insurance in 2005 for wheat, oats and flax, three crops that had passed the 5,000-acre minimum acreage needed for a crop to become insured.

Coverage is based on a producer’s 10-year history with that crop, although the corporation has added a five-year “fast track” for new organic producers. The streamlined option weighs each year by 20 per cent until probable yield is based totally on the individual.

The company sets coverage at 50 per cent of conventional yield to start (or in years without data), something Doug Wilcox, MASC manager of insurance program development, says is in line with provincial averages. Organic wheat averaged 45.3 per cent of conventional yield from 2005-16, according to MASC. Oats and flax were similar at 46.3 per cent and 47.1 per cent respectively.

Those three crops remain the only insurable organics, although other crops can be covered under conventional insurance.

Organic producers have pushed back against that requirement, arguing that conventional policies include an unrealistic weed management expectation and the value of grain doesn’t reflect what they can get in the market.

• Read more: Manitoba Organic Alliance names agronomist

However, organic insurance considers early-season weeds a “designated peril” for reseeded acres and have more tolerance for fertility issues, MASC claim services manager David Van Deynze has said in the past.

Coming crops?

The MOA hopes to add barley, rye and peas to the list of insurable crops, although MASC says none of those three approaches minimum acreage.

According to MASC’s Wilcox, 4,194 acres of organic barley were grown in 2012, dropping to 1,964 last year. Rye, meanwhile, dropped from 4,190 acres in 2012 to 2,991 in 2016. No data was collected on organic peas. Wilcox drew numbers from provincial estimates in 2012 and the Canada Organic Trade Association Annual Report in 2016.

Of Manitoba’s organic crops, only forage and pasture land approach the necessary acres, Wilcox added.

“We’ve been asked once or twice in the past to potentially insure those crops, but we’re worried about taking on a large acreage of organic crops when, with the core programs we have right now having high losses, we’re hoping to get those programs organized and straightened out before we expand to forages or barley or hemp or whatever is recommended we go forward with next,” he said.

The company has paid out more than it has taken in premiums for its organic policies. From 2005-15, the company paid out $2.8 million, compared to $2.5 million collected. Because of that loss, MASC considers an organic policy about three times riskier than conventional insurance.

The minimum acreage is not always a concrete rule, Wilcox said, and exceptions may be made for crops expected to expand.

One of those exceptions might be yellow peas.

The pea market in general is expected to rise in Manitoba with the Roquette pea protein plant in Portage la Prairie that’s currently under construction. Ground broke on the facility this summer and it is expected to start contracting peas next year.

Organic growers got similarly good news. In mid-September, sustainable plant protein company Verdient Foods announced a new pulse-processing facility in Vanscoy, Sask. The facility is expected to take up to 160,000 tonnes of grain each year.

At the same time, Verdient Foods announced its partnership with the Saskatchewan Food Industry Development Centre, a four-year bid to develop more products using organic pulses.

Production disconnect

The MOA has also argued that insurance does not take green manure properly into account. The practice is commonly used to manage nutrients by terminating plants before maturity and plowing them into the soil.

In some systems, organic producers may underseed a cash crop with a green manure legume to be terminated after harvest.

That underseeded legume remains small until the main crop is removed, Storey said, after which the secondary crop grows and is eventually plowed in. Storey noted, however, that a wet year may boost that underseeded crop to overtake the main crop, leading adjusters to invalidate a producer’s insurance.

“It’s become a weed,” she said. “So we need parameters around that.”

MASC, however, considers this intercropping. The corporation has labelled intercrops too risky for insurance, something that has also frustrated conventional farmers experimenting with the practice.

Wilcox notes that intercrop acres are low, making MASC’s minimum acreage an issue. He also cited possible mismanagement and confusion over which crop is the primary crop to be insured.

“When it comes time to harvest, are there going to be management issues related to harvest that insurance shouldn’t pay for because one crop has matured much earlier than the other, for example, and then you get crop loss during harvest as a result of mismatching maturities?” he posed.

A “novel crops” insurance has been suggested to solve both the green manure issue and lack of covered crops. Wilcox’s team has designed a prototype program, although it has yet to be approved by MASC.

Price gap

Payouts have been another sticking point for organic producers, who say that insurance does not recognize their premium market price.

Currently, organic oats and wheat are paid out at 150 per cent of conventional crop price, while flax is valued at twice the conventional price.

According to Storey, those numbers should all be two times or more, if market prices were reflected. Saskatchewan, a province with 500,000 organic acres compared to Manitoba’s 100,000, offers a multiplier of 1.9, the MOA president said.

“It’s the same market,” she said. “So we need to actually work on improving that price and that will draw organic farmers into the program, because that’s what many of them look at when they make their decision whether to buy crop insurance or not or organic crop insurance or not. They look at the numbers and if they can see the numbers are not accurate, then they’re not going to participate and that hurts everybody, because then the program is not getting accurate data, the farmers don’t have a program that works as well as it could. It’s in everybody’s interest to get a little accuracy in there.”

Wilcox acknowledged the gap, but said MASC is reluctant to increase payouts, given their current costs.

Solutions have already begun to float on the issue, including higher buy-in from producers to increase MASC’s pool and lower risk.

“One of the solutions that has been proposed in the past is that we use contract prices producers have been offered for the coming year, but we’ve had problems in that the timing of when we can collect that information and incorporate it into our programs is too late,” Wilcox said. “We have to try and find some alternative approach or to get a better system to collect contract pricing for the coming year. Maybe in our discussion with the working group, we can find those solutions.”

There has been no timeline announced for the working group so far.

The post Organic Alliance says crop insurance needs an update on organic production appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Manitoba Farm Safety Program introduced infrared barn inspections Sept. 12. Inspectors use infrared cameras to map temperature and tag hot spots that might ignite, such as faulty wiring inside walls.

Electrical wiring is commonly considered a main source of barn fires, particularly in older buildings. High humidity and fumes may cause wires to corrode over time, causing electrical shorts. Rodents may also chew insulation, increasing the risk of an electrical fire.

• Read more: HogWatch calls for safer barns
• Read more: Farm building code streamlined

Program director Keith Castonguay says the new inspections were a response to this latest major barn fire, although it is far from the first time a barn blaze has made news.

A number of barn fires pop into headlines each year, including a fire in March 2015 in Kola, Man., which killed 1,500 pigs, followed the next month by a fire killing 3,000 pigs near Steinbach. The year before, about 5,000 chickens were lost in a fire near La Broquerie, while 2011 saw 8,000 chickens killed north of Brandon in March, followed by 12,000 chickens killed in a Manitou fire in July. Another infamous rash of fires in 2008 claimed over 30,000 pigs and led the industry to reassess fire safety.

The farm safety program’s inspections are largely aimed at hog barns, Castonguay said, although chicken and dairy barns are also included.

“The intensity of a barn fire is such that it’s very difficult to determine the cause of it but there is speculation that (it is) due to the corrosive nature of some of the gases that are present, whether H2S or whether it’s ammonia, or there’s straw that’s built up,” he said. “The source of ignition has to be found in a proactive way rather than after. If we can go through and find potential hot spots so that the farmer can deal with them in an earlier, faster way; if we can prevent one barn fire we’d be very happy.”

On the other end of the spectrum, farmers can call on the program to assess insulation, its website states.

The inspections have gained only limited interest so far, a situation Castonguay hopes will change once harvest eases.

“We didn’t expect a whole lot right now,” he said. “Now we’re starting to much more aggressively go after it.”

Castonguay has reached out to producer groups to promote the program and manage scheduling.

The post Infrared inspections look to curb barn fires appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The buyers present were not interested in exotic sheep or lambs, but instead paid close attention to age and quality.

During the sheep sale, all ewes saw major interest from buyers, with no evident price difference between wool and hair breeds. Average prices ranged from $1.05 to $1.18/lb., with a couple of exceptions that resulted in prices ranging from $1.24 to $1.29/lb.

During the ram sale, there was a clearly demonstrated preference for hair rams from various buyers. Prices ranged from $1.20 to $1.31/lb. for these animals. Wool rams ranged in price from $1.09 to $1.13/lb.

A buyer interested in Icelandic-cross rams in quality and various colours would have found good value at this sale, with few buyers present showing any interest in exotic sheep

The heavyweight class was represented by a 120-pound Clun Forest-cross lamb that brought $151.20 ($1.26/lb.)

Once again quality was clearly visible within this classification, which buyers used to make their decisions. Various animals weighing 95 pounds brought prices ranging as widely as $1.66 to $2.13/lb., with extra effort beneficial for the producer. Average prices that weren’t an outlier ranged from $2.03 to $2.05/lb. One exception was a 95-pound Suffolk-cross lamb which brought $2.13/lb.

Feeder lambs saw a variety of prices. An 85-pound Katahdin-cross lamb brought $1.60/lb. Wool lambs brought a price range from $1.98 to $2.20/lb. Eleven 92-pound Icelandic-cross lambs brought just $1/lb. Once again these lambs had excellent colours.

The lightweight lambs of the 70-plus-pound class ranged from $2.20 to $2.26/lb. An exception was a 79-pound Suffolk-cross lamb bringing $2.07/lb.

The 60-plus-pound classification continued this strong bidding. The price ranged from $2.29 to $2.37 per pound. However, the Icelandic-cross lambs did not reach this range. The seven 63-pound Icelandic-cross lambs brought $1.10 per pound.

Katahdin-cross lambs represented the 50-plus-pound classification. Price ranged from $1.91 to $2.10/lb.

A 35-pound Suffolk-cross lamb brought $1.50/lb. Four 38-pound Katahdin-cross lambs brought $1.40/lb.

Alpine-cross goat does represented the classification at this sale. Quality and age were guidelines for buyers. These issues caused wide price ranges. One group was from $1.06 to $1.21/lb. and another price range was from $1.53 to $1.54/lb. An exception was two 98-pound Alpine-cross goat does that brought $1.79/lb.

The lighter-weight Boer-cross goat bucks brought the higher price bidding. An 80-pound Boer-cross goat buck brought $2.22/lb., while a 160-pound Boer-cross goat buck brought $1.38/lb. A 60-pound Pygmy-cross goat buck brought $1.42/lb.

Heavier goat kids continued the strong bidding, but as the lighter goat kids entered the arena the bidding was not as strong. The eleven 71-pound Boer-cross goat kids brought $2.11/lb.

Two groups of 65-pound goat kids brought different bidding; first was $2.12/lb. and the other brought $2.46/lb.

The 50- and 58-pound Boer-cross goat kids brought $1.35/lb. and $2.07/lb.

A 45-pound Boer-cross goat kid brought $1.67/lb.

The group of two 28-pound Pygmy-cross goat kids and two 28-pound Alpine-cross goat kids, sold as a group, brought $1.16/lb.

The Ontario Stockyard Report indicated a higher bidding for well-fed light and heavy lambs compared to the last sale. All other classifications brought steady bidding.

The post Exotic sheep see little interest appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The November contract briefly traded above the 200-day moving average of $497 per tonne on Sept. 22, on the back of some fund buying triggered by a rally in Chicago soybeans. However, that key chart point held as resistance, and the contract finished the week closer to its 20-day average, at $494.80 per tonne. The contract finds itself right in the middle of a broad range from about $475-$525 per tonne.

The canola harvest saw setbacks in Alberta during the week, with cool and wet conditions including snow in some cases. However, farmers continued to make good progress elsewhere across the Prairies, and the market remains focused on a large crop. Producer deliveries into the commercial pipeline topped half a million tonnes for the third straight week in the latest Canadian Grain Commission data, which should leave end-users with little reason to bid up the market.

Statistics Canada on Sept. 19 released an updated model-based production estimate that uses satellite imagery, rather than farmer surveys, to gauge the size of the crop. The model-based number for canola, 19.7 million tonnes, would be a new record, and compares with the August survey of 18.2 million. While that’s already a large number, many analysts are still looking higher, pencilling a ‘20’ in their supply/demand calculations.

However, even with a record-large crop, world demand for oilseeds remains strong as well and any production issues elsewhere in the world could provide the spark that would break canola out of its sideways range.

The U.S. soybean harvest is just getting started, while South American farmers will soon be seeding their next soybean crop. Early U.S. soybean yields reports are beating expectations, but only four per cent of the crop was in the bin in the latest U.S. Department of Agriculture report. In South America, traders are watching dry conditions in Brazil and excessive moisture in Argentina, with both extremes likely to cut into the crop prospects.

With actual U.S. yields still up in the air as the harvest progresses, traders may be reluctant to push soybeans or corn too far one way or the other.

In wheat markets, futures trended higher over the course of the week, with the Minneapolis spring wheat contracts outpacing the Chicago and Kansas City winter wheats to the upside. Concerns over tightening supplies of higher-protein wheat accounted for some of the relative strength in Minneapolis, while relatively favourable winter wheat seeding conditions in the southern U.S. Plains limited the upside in those contracts.

Reports of large Russian wheat supplies also weighed on prices to some extent, although those big crops were countered by dryness concerns in Australia and the excessive moisture in Argentina.

The post Canola traders are fixed on forecasts for a record crop appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“We are really slamming into the end of the antibiotic era,” said Dr. Trisha Dowling, a professor of veterinary pharmacology at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine.

“I’ve got 24 different drugs for the treatment of bovine respiratory disease, and it’s still the most economically significant disease problem when it comes to producing a pound of ground beef.

“The wimps, like bovine respiratory disease, they ain’t wimpy no more.”

In a recent study done at Kansas State, researchers found an increase in multi-drug resistance in one of the bacteria — Mannheimia haemolytica — that causes bovine respiratory disease in feedlot cattle.

“Those Mannheimia isolates are showing resistance across the spectrum of antibiotics we use in cattle,” said Dowling, who spoke at the UCVM Beef Cattle Conference in mid-June.

“In 2009, it was only five per cent. In 2011, it was 35 per cent. Now, it’s 70 per cent.”

Her warning was echoed by a senior official with the world’s largest producer of medicine and vaccinations for livestock and pets.

Multi-drug resistance isn’t just a problem with “a few of the big products” that the cattle industry uses, said Dr. Dorothy Erickson, manager of veterinary services at Zoetis.

“Every antibiotic that has ever been developed has eventually had some kind of resistance show up,” said Erickson. “This threatens to take us to a post-antibiotic era where we’re not able to treat common infections any longer. These common infections may become life threatening.

“It is a very real risk.”

Every dose of an antibiotic has a “consequence,” she said.

“The more we use these antibiotics, the more we are selecting to allow those resistant bacteria to survive in our animals and in the environment,” said Erickson. “The more resistance we see coming up in the future, the less effective our products are going to be at treating disease.”

Farmers may soon start to see some of the direct consequences.

“We’ll see increased costs on our operations from increased morbidity, illness, and mortality if our antibiotics aren’t working as well as they used to.”

But because of the linked resistance in different classes of antibiotics, banning the use of antibiotics isn’t going to be effective, said Dowling.

“It’s going to be like closing the barn door after the horse has left. That’s why we have to be so careful with the antibiotic tools that we still have.”

Managing resistance

Up until now, antibiotics have been largely used as a “management tool,” but those days are coming to an end, said Dowling.

“That’s the kind of treatment that puts on the pressure for selecting for antimicrobial resistance,” she said. “We’re only going to be able to use them as an intervention.”

Erickson also said producers need to be more discriminating and use antibiotics “most effectively, where they’re most needed.”

“When we do deem it necessary to use these products, we need to make sure we’re using them correctly,” she said. “Do we have a diagnosis? And are we using the right product? We need to use the most appropriate product to target that specific disease.”

Using the correct dose is important, too.

“Both overdosing and underdosing an antibiotic will contribute to resistance,” said Erickson.

“We also need to be treating that animal for the appropriate amount of time — long enough that we’ve cleared up that infection, but not so long that we’re using those antibiotics unnecessarily.”

And as antimicrobials become less of an option, disease prevention will become even more critical.

“We as an industry need to start looking at alternatives to antibiotics and things that we can do a little bit better,” said Erickson.

Vaccination will be important, but biosecurity is “another huge one — how we manage our operations to avoid bringing disease in, in the first place.”

Stress reduction also plays a role.

“If an animal could do the exact same thing in the exact same spot every day of its life, it would be very happy. Cows enjoy routine,” said Erickson.

“Everything that we can do to keep that animal’s life the same is going to reduce that stress for them. Certain things like cattle handling and our management can help reduce those stresses and help prevent those diseases from getting in, in the first place.”

Ultimately, though, the cattle industry will need to present a “unified front” in order to protect the drugs used to treat common diseases like bovine respiratory disease, said Dowling. Without them, the cattle industry could be facing a crisis.

“In veterinary medicine, the discovery and development of these antibiotics have given us superpowers — but antimicrobial resistance is our kryptonite.”

The post Antimicrobial resistance in cattle means big changes coming appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The western Manitoba grain and cattle farmer has joined the ranks of producers changing things up on the cattle side of their operations in search of lower operating costs and better environmental stewardship.

He’s found that producing forage-finished cattle requires a strong focus on grazing and production management, forage quality, animal genetics and animal health. But it does pay off.

“There is certainly money to be made if you are able to graze successfully. Our machinery and overhead costs are way down and I find the entire process more enjoyable,” said Boyd, a third-generation farmer. “I calf in the spring and to come out on the quad and see calves on grass that is almost as tall as they are, that’s a bit nicer than when it’s 40 below and having to pull them into a calving barn because the snowbanks are so high.”

Boyd runs 2,000 acres of grain and a 350-head, cow-calf operation. This will be his third year playing with diverse annual forage mixtures to see what fits best into his grazing system. But he has been rotational grazing for more than 10 years and using holistic management techniques for seven.

“After two years of playing with this system, it is clear to me that there is something to this and now we are just looking at fine tuning to see how we can get the most out of it,” said Boyd.

Back to the farm

Boyd grew up on the family farm and went to the University of Manitoba where he acquired a degree in agronomy. In 2006 he returned home where he began to implement a rotational grazing system.

“You can read about these guys doing things all over the world and how great it is, but until you see some results on your own farm, it’s just a nice story. Once you see things working on your operation, it definitely fuels you to keep going,” said Boyd.

Most producers attempting this use perennial pasture mixtures that contain a minimum of 30 per cent legumes, usually alfalfa, along with grass species that are high quality and boast superior regrowth, such as meadow brome, orchardgrass and tall fescue. Many times high-energy annuals are used to supplement lower-quality perennials.

“Don’t underestimate the power of diversity. You don’t have to get too carried away but there is certainly something to having a few different species growing together. This year we’ve got two different mixes. One mix is predominantly a cool season and the plan is to hay it for greenfeed and then it will grow back for grazing,” said Boyd. “The other mix is a summer annual blend and it will just be left standing for a late fall-winter grazing.”

Some producers choose to move cattle intensively, sometimes daily, as short grazing sessions and long recovery periods give plants time to develop abundant root mass and aid to building soil nutrients. Rest and recovery systems are also essential in managing regrowth to ensure first-rate forage.

Subdivided

Most grazing systems consist of eight to 10 permanent paddocks, which are further subdivided with the use of temporary fencing.

“The majority of our paddocks are 10 acres and the cattle will graze on that for about a day or two, depending on the herd size. There is quite a bit of labour involved, just in moving the cattle, but I don’t think as much labour as calving cows in the winter.”

In terms of rest periods, Boyd prefers to leave pastures to rest for 100 to 120 days.

“Ideally we graze the paddock once in the green season and once in the dormant season. It would be grazed in the summer, any time from June to September, and then either early in the spring that year or late in the fall. We aim to graze about 1-1/2 times over the course of the year,” said Boyd.

Boyd is hopeful that this year his cattle will be able to graze on his annual mixture well into December or possibly early January.

“These mixtures will grow three to four feet tall. We have grazed through a foot of snow or more in the past without problem. In December-January we will move into grazing on standing corn and we supplemented a little bit of hay. We strip graze about an acre and move them daily. This is certainly an area where we have cut costs as we have nearly eliminated the need to buy feed,” said Boyd.

Cattle will graze on the corn until spring when they are moved back onto grass pastures.

“The best advice would be to just give it a try. That is how you are going to know what is going to work on your farm. Everyone’s operations are so different, from the time of year they calf to their soil type to the type of weather they get and what their goals are.”

Expanding ideas

Boyd notes that his grazing program does seem to be fairly unique to the area but there are others experimenting with similar systems.

Fellow Brandon-area farmer, Brett McRae has also begun to work with intensive grazing systems.

“Right now I am in the initial years of setting up my intensive grazing system. The cattle are currently grazing on a series of native and non-native grass pasture paddocks and I have been moving them every few days,” said McRae. “So far this year the cattle seem to be gaining well.

“This can definitely be overwhelming when you are starting out and it is a trial-and-error kind of situation, so it is not without fail. But I think in the long run it will have certain benefits,” said McRae.

McRae was selected to participate in the Cattlemen’s Young Leaders mentorship program where he was matched with Steve Kenyon, an Alberta producer who has been involved with sustainable grazing management for more than 10 years.

“Steve and I were matched up really well in terms of what he had to share with me and what I wanted to learn. I certainly learned a tremendous amount from him, not just in his direction but he is also great at pointing me towards other resources that have added to my knowledge on the topic,” said McRae.

Growing up in the livestock industry, McRae has taken a step outside his family’s conventional management methods and is excited to continue with his grazing plan for a few years in order to streamline his procedures.

“Developing a grazing plan is an ongoing thing. You have to try some things out and find out what is going to work best for your farm and your cattle. I have been told to have patience because you usually don’t start to see a lot of the benefits from these management changes for a few years,” said McRae.

The post Cattle producers implement new grazing options appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.