Details

Last Updated on Thursday, 22 March 2012 13:54

Written by Karla Jenkins

Editor’s note: In this column, University of Nebraska-Lincoln cow/calf and range management specialist Karla Jenkins provides advice on using growth implants as a management tool for calves that are still nursing, a practice only a few producers are now considering. She describes the advantages, and advises how to get the best results for this practice.
    As calving moves into full swing, many producers are thinking about vaccination programs they want to implement at branding. However, only a few are also considering how growth implants could be used as a management tool for the nursing calf.
    Implants have been proven to improve gains by four to five percent, according to research from Oklahoma State University. This could translate to an additional 18 to 20 pounds of weaning weight. Put another way, it means every dollar spent on implants will result in approximately a $15 to $20 return for producers selling calves at weaning.
    Implants can be quickly administered at branding along with calf-hood vaccinations. Some questions and answers about implants for nursing calves:
    Will implanting nursing calves negatively impact finishing performance?
    The best way to realize the benefits of an implantation strategy is to read and follow label instructions and recommended guidelines. Implant strategies should always start with the least aggressive implants for nursing calves, followed by the most aggressive implants during the finishing phase.
    There are many growth-promoting implants available, some for nursing calves, some for stocker cattle and others for finishing cattle. Studies have shown calves implanted from nursing through finishing did not experience poorer performance than calves implanted only during the finishing phase. Options for nursing calves include Ralgro, Synovex C and Component E-C.
    Which calves should I implant?
    None of the implants approved for nursing calves are approved for calves less than 30 to 45 days of age. One implant between two months of age and weaning has been shown to have little impact on future productive performance of heifers. However, little benefit has been shown, as well. Therefore, any heifers identified for replacements prior to branding should not be implanted. Bull calves should not be implanted, as it can negatively impact reproductive development.
    Cattle being implanted must also be consuming a high-quality diet to maximize the effect of the implant. Therefore, weaned cattle that will be fed low-quality forage through the winter will not benefit from implants as much as cattle on a higher plane of nutrition.
    Calves destined for a natural or organic market should not be implanted.
    How do I get the best return for my implant dollar?
    Proper placement and handling of the implant is imperative for the correct payout to occur. Implants should be placed in the middle third of the ear between the skin and the cartilage, making sure to avoid hitting the blood vessels in the ear. The needle should be disinfected (Nolvasan is a good example) after each use to prevent abscesses, which will reduce the implant response. If the ear has dirt or fecal matter it should be wiped clean prior to implant insertion. For best results, avoid crushing or bunching the implant pellets in the ear, and make sure the implant is placed in the ear before pulling the needle out so part of the implant is not lost.
    Doesn’t implanted beef contain hormones that are bad for humans?
    First of all, it is important to note that no beef is “hormone free.” All mammals produce some degree of hormones. Secondly, a three-ounce serving of beef from a non-implanted steer contains 1.3 nanograms of estrogen, compared to 1.85 nanograms in the same sized serving of beef from an implanted steer. A three-ounce serving of peas contains 341 nanograms of estrogen activity. By contrast, a non-pregnant woman produces 480,000 nanograms of estrogen per day, while a daily estrogenic birth control pill contains 20,000 to 50,000 nanograms of estrogen.
    Implanting nursing calves is a safe, economical management tool available to cow/calf producers to maximize returns.
    Additional information on beef cattle production can be found at beef.unl.edu. Karla Jenkins is a cow/calf and range management specialist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Panhandle Research and Extension Center in Scottsbluff, Neb.

Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 31 December 2011 08:58

Written by Saige Albert

Spring Flooding and Its Effects on Wyoming Agriculture
By Doug Miyamoto, Deputy Director, Wyoming Department of Agriculture
    Following the flooding around Wyoming last summer, Wyoming farmers and ranchers had a lot of work to do. While many chose to undertake the cleanup themselves, there is a system in place for agricultural disaster assistance that works well in many cases.
    The good news from the summer flooding is it could’ve been a lot worse. As we entered the spring and summer this year, all indications pointed to high snowpack run-off causing severe flooding all around Wyoming. In response to this threat, Governor Mead mobilized the Wyoming National Guard to help communities fill sand bags, build dikes and prepare for evacuations. On the agricultural side of the equation, irrigators were asked to divert as much water as possible to spread on fields so that the water wouldn’t end up flowing through downstream communities. This proactive and preventative action clearly reduced the level of clean up and restoration work required after the water subsided.  
    During this time, at the Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA) we provided outreach to producers, county emergency management personnel, county commissioners and Wyoming Homeland Security on federal disaster assistance programs for agriculture and the process for receiving aid. This summer the WDA hosted producer and commissioner outreach meetings around the state to provide education of the process for applying for federal emergency funding and to assist with the disaster declaration process. It’s important to point out the two USDA agencies that rise to the top in delivery of disaster recovery assistance, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA).
    NRCS offers a critical program called the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. The funding for this program resides with the Wyoming State Office for NRCS and can be delivered quickly and without a formal disaster declaration. This program was responsible for contributing over $360,000 worth of vital rehabilitation work following this year’s flooding and benefitted 58 landowners.
    One particularly important project occurred on Shell Creek in Big Horn County. Water in the channel was running about 10 feet higher than normal and was threatening the Porter Ditch diversion structure. Water threatened to top the structure and was actively eroding the embankment holding it in place. If erosion would have continued unabated, the headgate would have fallen into the channel and diverted the entire river into the irrigation canal, which would have likely failed as well causing more severe flooding. Along with this project, NRCS was able to save a historic building, several roads, crossings and homes in response to this year’s flooding, as well as many structures and agricultural resources over the years through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program.  
    The Farm Service Agency, a sister agency to NRCS, was also able to get some agricultural disaster recovery funding into Wyoming this year. The process for garnering funding for FSA’s program requires competing for funding at the national level. Federal disaster declarations are required for many of FSA’s emergency programs. All of Wyoming’s counties were eligible for some level of FSA assistance that varied by the specifics of the disaster declaration. Delivery of actual money into the counties was a more difficult proposition.
    Since Wyoming had to compete with tornados in the southeast, nation-wide flooding and record-breaking drought and wildfires in Texas, FSA funding was exhausted rapidly. FSA was able to deliver $140,000 to Crook County which assisted landowners in with projects like debris removal, fence reconstruction and headgate replacements.
    Despite the fact that all Wyoming counties are eligible for disaster assistance, the process for formally requesting disaster declarations for program eligibility is complicated and time consuming. There are some recent developments that may streamline the process for applying for FSA disaster assistance, which could also increase the likelihood of project funding. The Nov. 14 edition of the Federal Register outlined a proposed rule that would eliminate the need for a formal disaster declaration in order to be eligible for FSA emergency programs. The Wyoming FSA staff provided status updates and program information all summer long and without their expert assistance, we would not have been able to inform our producers and commissioners on the process of obtaining federal disaster assistance.  
    All in all, there are programs available to help Wyoming farmers and ranchers in instances of disasters. It’s not a perfect system, but we will continue to provide as much information as possible to Wyoming’s producers regarding disaster recovery assistance. If you have any questions or concerns about disaster recovery assistance, contact the WDA at 307-777-7321.