Bovine Respiratory Disease

Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) is the number one health issue in cattle. It is a function of the relationship between stressors, susceptibility, and pathogens in the herd. Each of these factors is important, but it is the relationship between them that determines whether an animal will be healthy or sick.

Stressors are those things that cause stress to the animal’s system. It includes things like shipping, weaning, moving, intermingling, drought, weather change, heat, cold, poor nutrition, processing, and on and on. It is all of those things that require energy to overcome.

Susceptibility refers to the animal’s immunity to a particular disease. There are many forms of immunity. Passive immunity is created by the transfer of antibodies from one individual to another such as through the placenta from the mother to the offspring or through the colostrum. Innate immunity is resistance to disease resulting from good general health. If the immune system is functioning properly it will often be able to fight off many diseases. Acquired immunity results from vaccination or from previous infection.

Pathogens are those infectious agents that cause disease or illness for its host. These infectious agents may be airborne, in the soil, or passed from animal to animal. They include bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, parasites, and some proteins (prions).

Sickness occurs when the pathogen load exceeds the animal’s ability to resist. Calves may be perfectly healthy at the ranch, but when weaned and taken to the auction, the stress may cause them to succumb to pathogens they may be exposed to at the auction barn. This can occur whether they have been vaccinated or not. If the animal’s threshold of resistance falls below the level at which it can overcome the pathogen load to which it is exposed, it will become sick.

Calves that have been weaned and pre-conditioned prior to shipment typically have a higher threshold of resistance than those which are shipped immediately after weaning. They are usually de-wormed and vaccinated against common pathogens in order to boost the antibody levels in their blood. They also have had time to overcome the stress of weaning. These calves will typically experience fewer problems in the stocker phase or at the feedlot.

Generally, unless exposed to extreme pathogen loads, pre-conditioned cattle perform well with little additional treatment. However, there continues to be risk of sickness even for those animals that have been handled properly. Recall that sickness occurs any time the threshold of resistance is lower than the pathogen load. This can occur because of a large number of stressors causing the resistance threshold to fall, or because the pathogen load is high. The more frequently cattle are handled, shipped, or co-mingled – exposed to stressors – the lower their threshold of resistance.

One of the primary sources of exposure to high pathogen load is cattle that are persistently infected with the bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVD-PI). These calves are carriers of the BVD virus which is one of the primary causes of BRD in cattle. BVD acts as a pathogen, but also acts as an immuno-suppressant, causing the immune system to fail to react properly to pathogens for a period of time. BVD-PI calves shed the BVD virus at an extremely high rate – approximately 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 viral particles daily throughout their life. Such high viral shed rates can overcome the immune system of healthy cattle that may be exposed to them.

Cattle health is important to the profitability of the operation. It is a function of many things, creating a complexity that often affords no simple solution. It is always recommended that the producer seek the advice of a qualified professional nutritionist and veterinarian to implement a program that will improve their chance of success.

Corn Yield Projections Up

Good weather, high yields, new varieties...

Corn Harvest, Yield Projections on the Rise,
Says NCGA (9-12-07)

As corn growers begin harvest the size of the 2007 crop is becoming more clear, says the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA).

The latest report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), released this.... (see rest of article here).

Solar UAV

Here is another interesting article from the DOE's office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

September 12, 2007

Solar-Powered Airplane Achieves Record Unmanned Flight Duration

An unmanned solar-powered aircraft has flown for 54 consecutive hours over the deserts of New Mexico, setting an unofficial record for the longest unmanned flight. Called the Zephyr High Altitude Long Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), the craft features a 59-foot wingspan covered with thin-film amorphous silicon solar cells from United Solar Ovonic. The Zephyr flies at night using energy stored in a rechargeable lithium-sulfur battery pack from Sion Power. QinetiQ incorporated those technologies into a 66-pound aircraft made of carbon fiber composites.

Launched from the White Sands Missile Range, the Zephyr flew twice while carrying a surveillance payload, reaching an altitude of 58,355 feet on its record flight. Funded by a research program of the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence, the Zephyr is designed as a high-altitude platform for surveillance or communications. The official record for a UAV flight is 30 hours and 24 minutes. The Zephyr flight cannot claim the official record because there was no official witness from the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), or world's air sports federation, which is the official keeper of aeronautic records. According to the FAI Web site, QinetiQ has already submitted two world record claims for the duration and altitude of a Zephyr flight in late July. See the QinetiQ press release and the FAI Web site.

With all of the Sunshine in the Middle East, this could really come in handy!

Power of the Waves II

The following article is from the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website.

September 12, 2007

Company Deploys Wave Energy Device off Oregon Coast

Finavera Renewables Inc. announced on September 6th that it has deployed its prototype AquaBuOY 2.0 wave energy converter off the coast of Newport, Oregon. Located about two and a half miles from the coast, the wave energy converter consists of an open steel cylinder extending downward into the ocean from a floating buoy. A piston is located midway down the cylinder, suspended between two steel-reinforced rubber hoses like a button on a string. As waves pass, the piston moves up and down along the cylinder, alternately flexing and compressing the hoses. The hoses are filled with seawater, and as they flex, they eject high-pressure seawater into a turbine, which rotates and drives a generator to produce power.

The prototype wave energy converter is fitted with solar panels and small wind turbines to guarantee a constant supply of power to equipment that is monitoring the performance of the device. Data is being streamed from the buoy via wireless and satellite systems. Over the next several weeks, Finavera Renewables will analyze the performance of the device, with the aim of perfecting a design that can be deployed next year. The company hopes to install a commercial wave energy system at the site by 2010. See the Finavera press release (PDF 71 KB). Download Adobe Reader.

At least one other wave energy project is planned for the Oregon coast, as Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (OPT) plans to build and deploy a 150-kilowatt PowerBuoy wave energy converter off the coast of Reedsport. Like the AquaBuOY wave energy converter, the PowerBuoy device is a buoy that employs a piston-like structure to drive a generator. In late August, OPT signed an agreement with PNGC Power, a Portland-based electric power services cooperative, which will provide $500,000 to OPT for the fabrication and installation of its prototype device. OPT plans to develop a 2-megawatt wave power system at the Reedsport site, with the possibility of later expanding the project to 50 megawatts. See OPT press release and Web site.

This is a different type of technology for harvesting wave energy than I previously posted.

The Continued Debate

The continuing debate --

Biofuels may harm more than help

Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:29pm ET
By Sybille de La Hamaide

PARIS (Reuters) - Biofuels, championed for reducing energy reliance, boosting farm revenues and helping fight climate change, may in fact hurt the environment and push up food prices, a study suggested on Tuesday.

In a report on the impact of biofuels, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said biofuels may "offer a cure that is worse than the disease they seek to heal".

"The current push to expand the use of biofuels is creating unsustainable tensions that will disrupt markets without generating significant environmental benefits," the OECD said.
"When acidification, fertilizer use, biodiversity loss and toxicity of agricultural pesticides are taken into account, the overall environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel can very easily exceed those of petrol and mineral diesel," it added.

The OECD therefore called on governments to cut their subsidies....(read article here)

This article seems to focus on the environmental impact of biofuels. I think they're off base in their focus. Read for yourself. Here's a link to the OECD study.

Balance of Trade Numbers

Agriculture is one area in which the Balance of Trade is in our favor. In Fiscal Year 2007 to date we have a favorable trade balance of $7.857 Billion. To see the statistics for the last four years follow this link. Agriculture has almost always been one of the few bright spots in the Balance of Trade equation. The Balance of Trade is U.S. exports vs imports.

Grants for Biomass Energy Research

Bioenergy Research is moving forward.

Sept. 11, 2007

Texas A&M Agriculture Receives Sun Grant Funding for Bioenergy Research

Contact: Blair Fannin, 979-845-2259,b-fannin@tamu.edu

COLLEGE STATION – Eight of Texas A&M Agriculture's bioenergy research projects will receive funding through the Sun Grant Initiative, a national program established to create new solutions for future U.S. energy needs.

Developing sweet sorghum hybrids as a bioenergy feedstock and evaluation of transporting biomass energy crops are part of a group of research programs being led by Texas A&M Agriculture through the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and Texas Cooperative Extension. The scientists will also collaborate with other land-grant universities.

"The Sun Grant funding will greatly enhance several core research efforts related to bioenergy as we seek science-based solutions to alternative energy for Texas and beyond," said Dr. Elsa Murano, vice chancellor and dean of agriculture and life sciences for The Texas A&M University System. "These grants demonstrate the depth of our bioenergy research programs and our commitment to leveraging agriculture to help solve our country's energy needs."

Texas A&M Agriculture will collaborate on the following research programs as part of the Sun Grant Initiative:

- Evaluating sweet sorghum hybrids as bioenergy feedstock (Dr. Bill Rooney, Texas A&M University Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station; Dr. Juerg Blumenthal, Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station; Dr. Brent Bean, Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Amarillo);

- Developing designer sorghums to optimize grain for bioethanol conversion (Dr. Dirk Hays, Texas A&M Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station);

- Evaluating the nutritional and feeding value of ethanol by-products from animal production (Dr. Travis Whitney and Dr. Chris Lupton, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, San Angelo; Dr. James Muir and Dr. Barry Lambert, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Stephenville);

- Breeding and testing new switchgrass cultivars for increased biomass production (Muir);

- Using animal waste in coal-fired plants (Dr. John Sweeten, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Amarillo);

- Investigating a biotechnology platform for biomass bioconversion (Dr. Paul de Figueiredo, Texas A&M Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station);

- Developing a skid-mounted gasification system for on-site heat, fuel and power production (Dr. Sergio Capareda, Texas A&M Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station); and

- Evaluating the energy and cost advantages of modules for packaging and transporting biomass energy crops (Dr. Stephen Searcy, Texas A&M Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station).

Approximately $2.5 million over the next three years will fund a total of 17 projects as part of the Sun Grant Initiative, which receives funds for the research projects from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The Sun Grant Initiative is also aimed at helping revitalize rural communities by working with land-grant universities and their federal and state laboratory partners on research, education and extension programs.

I'm not convinced that utilizing feed crops for ethanol production is the best strategy for our country. I only hope that the research today will lead to the next generation of technology.

Shopping Cart Full of Red Lights!

FDA considers food-label symbols to steer shoppers toward healthier eating

ANDREW BRIDGES

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — Next month, General Mills Inc. and Kellogg Co. will begin emblazoning their breakfast cereals with symbols that summarize complex nutritional information — part of the growing use of logos to steer harried grocery shoppers toward healthier choices.

The proliferation of such symbols is a worldwide phenomenon, with government regulators in Britain, Sweden and elsewhere establishing logo systems that concisely indicate how nutritious food products are. In the United States, however, corporations have been left to devise their own schemes. That's led to a patchwork of systems that some fear further confuses consumers already unsure about how to eat wisely.

On Monday, the Food and Drug Administration took a first step toward clearing matters up, inviting food companies, trade groups, watchdog organizations, medical experts and its overseas counterparts to share how front-label symbols, like the "traffic light" system used in Britain, can improve public health.

The FDA stressed the meeting was a preliminary step as it considers whether to establish a national symbol system. Any action is likely years away — and, even then, any system is likely to be voluntary.

Absent federal action, food manufacturers and retailers have taken matters into their....(complete story here)

The Nanny patrol is in full force. If some groups have their way, beef will have a "Red" light on it. To go even farther -- if PETA had it's way, all meat and milk products would have "Red" lights on them. I think that I'm the best judge of what I want to eat. Admittedly, some food labels are difficult to interpret in order to know what is really in them and it might be helpful to have some clarification, but a Stoplight is ridiculous.

Crop of the Future?

For farmers on the windswept High Plains, energy from wind may become an important crop.


Winds of Change Bring Investment Opportunities

Published on: Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Written by: Brad Zimmerman
rates: 3 avg: 5

Farmers have traditionally tended everything from cotton to corn. But wind?

Cash crops come in all shapes and sizes, and giant energy-producing wind turbines have become the latest incarnation. Energy companies are paying top dollar to landowners willing to lease or sell space for wind turbines, and investors may want to follow the breeze.

The move toward wind energy is fueled by major energy companies trying to rack up clean energy credentials and state legislatures passing laws requiring increased use of energy from renewable sources.

Texas is becoming a pioneer in the wind market; many of its western plains feature the consistently high wind speeds capable of sustaining a productive wind farm. Wind speeds need to average 14 miles per hour annually to effectively power the 200-foot high wind turbines, according to Alliant Energy, an energy company serving the Midwest.

Besides strong gusts, expansive acreage is needed to catch sufficient amounts of wind. States such as Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa have the land and the necessary wind potential. Regions available to invest in are limited because of these constraints; expect to heavily scout the Midwest, where the most viable states are located.

To put into perspective what a wind farm is capable of, take Buffalo Gap, the third-largest wind farm in Texas. With its most recent expansion complete, it produces 354 megawatts annually—enough to power nearly 100,000 homes, according to the Dallas Business Journal.

Leasing space for wind turbines can net a landowner between $3,000 and $5,000 per turbine annually, according to the Texas State Energy Conservation Office. Lease agreements vary and can include monthly rental income and royalties. Typical leases last anywhere from 10 to 25 years, making wind farms a potentially viable long-term investment, as long as energy companies remain interested in wind energy. (see complete article here)

In the words of Bob Dylan, "The answer is blowing in the wind." -- well at least part of the answer.

Energy vs Food II

In the short time that this blog has been active I have received numerous "search engine hits" on "energy vs food." These "hits" have come from countries throughout the world. It is apparently a topic of great interest.

There is continuing debate about ethanol production and its impact on food prices both worldwide and domestically. The article below by the Renewable Fuels Association is written from the perspective of a pro-ethanol group. Their contention is that rising food prices are more a result of rising petroleum product prices than rising corn prices. I can't disagree with their argument but I think it is incomplete. Please read the entire article.

Ethanol Facts:Food vs. Fuel

As the U.S. ethanol industry continues to expand, the amount of corn used for ethanol production is increasing dramatically. Corn use for ethanol more than doubled between 2001 and 2005. Critics question whether corn growers can satisfy demand for both renewable fuels and traditional uses like livestock and poultry feed, food processing and exports, and the contrived food vs. fuel debate has reared its ugly head once again.

Recently, critics and many in the media have charged that the rising price of corn due to growing ethanol demand is the major culprit for moderately rising consumer food prices. Absent from the discussion is the chief reason for increasing food costs: escalating energy costs. According to a June 2007 analysis of food, energy and corn prices conducted by John Urbanchuk of LECG, LLC, “rising energy prices had a more significant impact on food prices than did corn.” In fact, the report notes rising energy prices have twice the impact on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for food than does the price of corn.

“Energy costs have a much greater impact...(read complete story here)

All of the issues related to ethanol production impact food prices. It is a tapestry that is interwoven throughout both agriculture and energy industries. Corn for ethanol does impact food prices. We wouldn't be growing corn for ethanol if it wasn't for a desire to become energy independent. Energy prices, in all forms, are a significant part of the consumer's food dollar. It takes energy to grow, process and transport food items.

Most corn in the U.S. has traditionally been grown for livestock feed. Bi-products from ethanol distillation are used as livestock feed. Corn prices impact livestock prices due to the cost of feeding the animals. There is a lagged ripple effect through all segments of livestock production due to the biological delays in the production cycle. Corn for ethanol is unlikely to shift production directly away from human food crops. But, like all economic factors, it does have an impact.

An Introduction to Sustainable Agriculture

Increasing fuel costs are a major issue faced by farmers today. Not only does fuel cost directly affect the diesel and gasoline used on the farm, it is a major component of the cost of fertilizer and water. Agricultural enterprises are extremely energy intensive.

Historically farmers have offset rising fuel costs with increased output. This has been accomplished through new seed varieties and increasingly intensive management practices. One of the problems with such intensive production factors is that of sustainability. Long-term, many of the practices may injure the future productivity of the land until diminishing returns remove the land from production.

During the 1970’s a movement began in agriculture commonly referred to as the “alternative agriculture movement.” Over time, this movement has matured and in the 1990’s became known as the “sustainable agriculture” movement.

The 1990 Farm Bill stated that “the term sustainable agriculture means an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that over the long term will:
· Satisfy human food and fiber needs.
· Enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends.
· Make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls.
· Sustain the economic viability of farm operations.
· Enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.

In modern agriculture, the implementation of sustainable production methodology is complex. Farms today are designed to take advantage of economies of scale and thus utilize large-scale implements and production practices. Such economies are often driven by federal policy, international markets, and local resource limitations. A sustainable agriculture model is also affected by these factors but with careful planning, potentially less so.

Sustainable agriculture requires a “whole-farm” planning approach to production over an extended period of time. Under some production schemes, a complete crop rotation cycle may require 5 – 10 years. The “whole-farm” planning process removes the short-term dependence on price cycles by emphasizing diversity rather than volume of a single commodity.

Some of the factors that must be considered in a sustainable approach to agriculture are 1) water resources, 2) energy requirements, 3) soil productivity and health 4) wildlife and 5) air quality. Here on the High Plains, the two largest limiting factors to farm enterprises using any method of production are water and energy.

Water tables in the High Plains continue to decline due to a demand greater than the re-charge capacity of the aquifers. This re-charge deficit will only be exacerbated by growing populations, the influx of dairies, the requirements of industry – including ethanol plants, and the shift of productive capacity to high-water demand crops utilized in ethanol production. Strategies must be implemented to more efficiently utilize our water supplies.

Energy continues to be one of the hottest topics throughout the world economy. With limited fossil fuel supplies, alternative energy sources will become an even greater necessity than today. The good news for agriculture is that farmers will be called upon to help meet the needs for that energy. Wind farms will provide an increasing percentage of electricity for many uses, but it is difficult to run a tractor or combine with electricity. Ethanol production will help to stretch existing fossil fuel supplies, but currently is an inefficient substitute. It requires as much energy to produce a gallon of ethanol today as it provides.

Sustainable agriculture systems typically will be diversified operations. Rather than dependence on one or two cash crops, a sustainable operation will produce five or more crops and generally include livestock. The advantage of such a system, beyond the value of crop rotation, is to spread economic risk. Sustainable systems also seek to more efficiently utilize water and energy resources.

Because of its complexity, sustainable agriculture cannot be thoroughly covered in this brief space. Future columns will cover more of the specific ideas of such a program. A sustainable systems approach to production will become increasingly necessary as we grow into this new century of agriculture.

The Cowboy Code

This seems appropriate to a blog about Agriculture. Besides it's just plain Common Sense. It is a Conservative philosophy. If you are Energetic enough and believe in these principles, jump on over to the Cowboy Code Marshals page and see if you've got what it takes to be a cowboy.

The Cowboy Code

1. A cowboy always tells the truth and keeps his word.

2. A cowboy is a Patriot and stands for Truth, Justice and the American way.

3. A cowboy never betrays a trust or takes advantage.

4. A cowboy is brave, but never careless.

5. A cowboy defends the weak and helps them.

6. A cowboy is kind to children, old folks, and to animals.

7. A cowboy is free from racial and religious prejudice.

8. A cowboy is clean about his person and in thought, word, and deed.

9. A cowboy is loyal, hard working and maintains a high ethic.

10. A cowboy is thankful for what God has given him.

Sweet Sorghum Ethanol

On farm production of ethanol could be a significant step in developing energy independence for American agriculture. Combined with solar and wind energy production, farming operations could be able to supply not only their own energy needs, but have excess energy to sell. In effect, they would become "energy farmers."

'Sweet' Biofuels Research Goes Down On The Farm

Science Daily — Oklahoma State University’s sorghum-related biofuels research is taking a localized approach, with the aim of making possible the effective production of ethanol in the farmer’s own field.

Sweet sorghum can be grown throughout temperate climate zones of the United States, including Oklahoma. It provides high biomass yield with low irrigation and fertilizer requirements. Corn ethanol, in contrast, requires significant amounts of water for growing and processing.

Best of all, producing ethanol from sweet sorghum is relatively easy, said Danielle Bellmer, biosystems engineer with the OSU Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources’ Robert M. Kerr Food and Agricultural Products Center.

“Just press the juice from the stalk, add yeast, allow fermentation to take place and you have ethanol,” Bellmer said. “Unfortunately, the simple sugars derived from sweet sorghum have to be fermented immediately.”(....)

Of course, farmers will need to develop some new skill sets. This might open opportunities for the entrepreneurial minded to offer in-field sweet sorghum processing as a service -- similar to custom harvesting.

The goal is to make production of ethanol from sweet sorghum economically viable by using an in-field processing system that minimizes transportation costs and capital investment.
Equipment such as the harvester and other technology could be owned individually or cooperatively with a number of producers sharing and possibly helping one another process ethanol from sweet sorghum.

In Oklahoma, the potential processing scenario might look like this: Plant sweet sorghum around mid-April, and then stagger plantings for two to three months. This would provide a harvest window of August through November.

“Ethanol yields in Oklahoma could range from 300 gallons to 600 gallons per acre, depending on biomass yield, sugar content and juice expression efficiency,” said Chad Godsey, biofuels team member and OSU Cooperative Extension cropping systems specialist with the department of plant and soil sciences.(....)

Three hundred to six hundred gallons per acre is a lot! On a quarter section of land that's 48,000 - 96,000 gallons of ethanol!

“We would like to do with sweet sorghum what the Brazilians have done with sugar cane: In Brazil, sugar cane ethanol provides a large percentage of their fuel needs,” Bellmer said.

The idea of using sweet sorghum for commercial ethanol production is not new. The reason sweet sorghum is not as popular as corn in terms of being a source of ethanol in the United States has been the need to ferment its simple sugars immediately and the high costs associated with a central processing plant that is operated only seasonally.

“By determining a process by which agricultural producers can create ethanol in the field from sweet sorghum, that barrier is removed,” Bellmer said. “Producers will then have a much higher value product to sell.”

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Oklahoma State University.

If the in-field processing technology becomes a reality, this could revolutionize the way farmers operate. A percentage of acreage in each annual crop rotation would need to be dedicated for fuel production. Excess fuel could then be transported to a central gathering facility. We would see a whole new market spring up with pricing based on quality grade, etc. Entrepreneurs get ready.

Your Food Dollar

How much are you spending on food and beverages (includes alcoholic beverages)? According to the USDA, in 1929 consumers spent 23.4% of their disposable income on food purchases. That was 20.3% on food consumed at home and 3.1% on food consumed elsewhere. In 2006 consumers spent 9.9% of their disposable income on food. Of that, 5.8% on food consumed at home and 4.2% on food consumed elsewhere. Disposable income in 1929 was $83.4 billion. In 2006 it was $9,534.8 billion.

In 1929 consumers spent 87% of their food budget on items consumed at home. In 2006 that number was 59%. We are making more money and spending a smaller percentage of it on food even though we eat out much more frequently.

The farmer's share of the consumer food dollar dropped from 41% in 1950 to 20% in 2004 according to the Economic Research Service. It certainly speaks to the efficiency of America's farmers.

Bio-Security and Cattle

Bio-security is a subject that brings connotations of terrorism to mind. However, prevention of terrorist attacks on agricultural producers is only a small part of on-farm bio-security.

Bio-security has been defined as the set of policies and procedures implemented to protect resources from a biological attack. In its broadest sense, this applies to protecting livestock from the introduction of disease through natural vectors as well as by artificial means. Most diseases can be prevented or reduced through proper attention to sound management practice. This would include proper nutrition, a good vaccination program, and a sound bio-security program for your operation.

When developing bio-security procedures for a livestock operation, the following is a sampling of potential disease transmission factors that should be considered:

1. Contact with Neighboring Herds. Cattle coming in contact with animals across the fence could be exposed to diseases for which they are not fully protected. If your cow/calf operation shares a fence with a neighbor running stocker cattle that were recently purchased from a livestock auction, they may be exposed to many diseases.

2. New Animals. Any new animals introduced into the herd should ideally be isolated for a period of time (generally about three weeks) to allow for the incubation of any diseases they may have been exposed to prior to arrival at your operation. Be certain they are healthy before introducing them into your herd.

3. Instruments and Equipment. When processing cattle, disinfect/sanitize all equipment thoroughly prior to working the cattle and use disinfectants on instruments that are to be used. Many diseases may be spread through body secretions such as blood, manure, and saliva that may linger on instruments. Proper disinfection between animals can prevent or limit the spread of disease. Disinfectants can not be used on needles or syringes used for administering modified live virus vaccines.

4. Water Tanks. Water tanks should be sanitized on a periodic basis. This is especially important in confined situations such as a feedlot or grower yard. Always sanitize water tanks before introducing new groups of cattle. Tanks used in sick or convalescent pens should be cleaned regularly.

5. Natural Water Sources. If one of the water sources for your cattle is a stream, be aware of operations upstream from you. Contaminants as well as diseases may travel in the waterway.

6. Manure Management. Pens should be cleaned of manure on a regular basis. Some diseases can survive in manure for extended periods of time. Allowing it to build up increases the chances of exposing, or re-exposing cattle to disease.

7. Contaminated Feed. Feed can become contaminated. Such contamination could be in the form of manure in hay, mice and rats in bagged feed, or feed that is left in a bunk for extended periods and becomes moldy. Feeders and bunks should be cleaned on a regular basis.

8. Carcasses. Dead animals should be disposed of properly. Some diseases may live in the carcass for a period of time. Carcasses should immediately be moved away from healthy animals.

9. Diagnostics. When animals become sick or die, samples should be taken to determine what diseases are present. Such diagnostics along with implementing the advice of a qualified veterinarian will aid in the control and prevention of future disease.

10. Natural Vectors. Some diseases are carried by birds and insects. Excessive bird droppings in and around water tanks create a risk for diseases such as coccidiosis. Insects such as flies and mosquitoes also may spread disease between animals.

11. Other. Some other things to consider might be a) boot disinfection – especially after working with sick animals, b) insisting that cattle trucks be washed before transporting your cattle, c) restricting access to your operation to known individuals.

The above items are a basic outline of issues that should be considered, or included in an on-farm bio-security program. It is highly recommended that you set a time to work with a licensed veterinarian to develop such a program for your operation. The reward will be healthier animals and reduced operating costs due to sickness.

Net Farm Income, Subsidies and the Consumer

The following summaries from the Economic Research Service of the USDA provide a snapshot of estimated 2007 Farm Income at both the macro and the household level.


2007 Net Farm Income Is Forecast To Be $66.6 Billion

In 2007, net farm income is forecast to be $66.6 billion in 2007, up $6 billion from 2006 and $9 billion above its average for the previous 10 years. Market prices for corn, wheat, and soybeans are forecast to remain above 2006 levels. In addition, prices for sorghum and hay are projected to be higher in 2007 as higher prices for corn result in increased demand for these commodities as feed substitutes. The farm income forecast reflects an expected increase in the production of corn and declines in the production of soybeans and sorghum as high corn prices encourage farmers to switch production to corn. The value of livestock production is forecast to be $125.7 billion, up $3.1 billion from 2006. Government payments to farmers are expected to total $12.4 billion in 2007, down from the $16.3 billion paid out in 2006.

Get the full farm sector income forecast.

Farm Operator Households' Income Up in 2007

In 2007, average farm operator household income (farm and off-farm earnings) is projected to be $81,588, up 2.2 percent from the income level forecast for 2006, and 8.1 percent above the 5-year average for 2002-06f. On the farm, increases in crop cash receipts, livestock cash receipts, and other farm income are projected to be partially offset by declines in government payments. When higher farm expenses are factored in, average net cash farm income is projected to be $17,271 in 2007, up 2.1 percent from the 2006 forecast. However, not all this income is realized by the primary operator as household income. Income from any farm may be shared by other households. With adjustment for depreciation and additional earnings to the household from other farms, average operator household income from farm sources is projected at $11,488. Income from farm sources, projected at 3.4 percent above the 2006 forecast, would be 11.7 percent above the prior 5-year average. Average household income from off-farm sources is projected at $70,101, a 2-percent increase above the 2006 forecast and 7.6 percent above the prior 5-year average. Income from off-farm sources is expected to be 85.9 percent of household income in 2007.

Get the forecast for farm household income.

The significant projected increase in Total Farm Income of $6 billion is a reflection of the market impact of ethanol production on corn prices. This approximately 10% increase in income created a 24% decrease in Farm Subsidy payments. That's the positive side. The increased demand and consequent higher prices for corn have resulted in a ripple effect throughout the feed crops market that has impacted livestock operations. Higher feed costs have forced a market adjustment that also results in higher livestock prices. These higher livestock prices enhance revenue projections at the farm level but have eroded feeding margins at the feedlot level. The resulting market dynamics will continue to place upward pressure on food prices at the retail level.

Note that the decrease in Farm Subsidy payments will be offset in the energy sector through price incentives for alternative energy production. Specifically a 51 cent per gallon tax credit for each gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline. With 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol produced in 2006 this translates to a cost to the taxpayer of approximately $2.5 billion to offset the savings in Farm Subsidy payments of $3.9 billion. The net savings to the taxpayer is approximately $1.4 billion. This seems like a good trade off to me on the surface. However, when you factor in the net increase in food prices, the consumer loses. The ERS projects a 3.5-4.5% increase in food prices for 2007. U.S. food expenditures for 2006 were $1,082.5 billion. Using a 4% figure, that translates to a $43.4 billion impact to the consumer. Suddenly it doesn't look like such a good trade off to me.

Renewable Energy Report

Renewable energy sources are providing an increasing percentage of our nation’s energy supply according to a report issued by the Energy Information Administration office of the Department of Energy. Preliminary data indicates that total renewable energy consumption increased 7 percent between 2005 and 2006. In contrast, total U.S. energy consumption declined 1 percent mainly due to the decreased consumption of fossil fuels.

Ethanol production increased from 3.9 billion gallons in 2005 to 4.9 billion gallons in 2006. This was due to several factors including 1) continued replacement of MTBE by ethanol as a gasoline additive, 2) higher crude oil prices which have raised the price of gasoline and therefore increased the demand for ethanol as a substitute, 3) Federal tax incentives such as a 51 cent/gallon tax credit available to blenders for each gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline and 4) The Energy Policy Act of 2005 which mandates annual renewable fuel use in gasoline at 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.

At 2006 production levels, ethanol accounted for nearly 4 percent of U.S. finished gasoline production. The USDA estimates that 14 percent of corn use in the 2005/2006 crop year went for production of ethanol up from 11 percent in the 2004/2005 crop year and 6 percent in 1999/2000.

The number of ethanol plants operating in the U.S. increased from 95 in January 2006 to 110 in January 2007, with 76 plants under construction or expanding at that time. Production capacity in the U.S. stood at 5.5 billion gallons per year online in January 2007. Bio-diesel production stood at about 91 million gallons in 2005.

Wind generation in 2006 increased to 26 billion kilowatt hours, up from 18 billion kilowatt hours in 2005. This made wind’s share of the renewable generation market 7 percent, up from 5 percent the previous year. Wind capacity increased greater than any other renewable generation source in 2006.

The 3 states with the largest increases in wind capacity were Texas, Washington, and California in order of capacity increase. Texas added 943 megawatts. Total capacity of wind generation in Texas stood at 2,698 megawatts by the end of 2006 making it the nation’s leader in wind generation capacity.

In 1999, Texas adopted a renewable portfolio standard that required 2,000 megawatts of new renewable capacity be installed by 2009 in addition to the existing 880 megawatts. Texas has already met that requirement. In August 2005, that goal was raised to 5,880 megawatts by 2015 (about 5 percent of the state’s electricity demand). Legislation has been passed to streamline the installation of transmission lines to handle the increase in wind generated supply.

One megawatt of electricity can supply approximately 1,000 homes.

Trimble-Dickey-john Partnership

Some positive news for Precision Farming:

Trimble and DICKEY-john Partner to Offer Farmers a Wide Range of 'Hybrid' Precision Farming Solutions

August 28, 2007 (10:30 AM EST)

PRNewswire

DECATUR, Ill., Aug. 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Trimble and DICKEY-john(R) announced today that they have joined forces to offer farmers a complete precision farming solution that uses the most advanced agricultural electronic technology from both companies.

The announcement was made today at the Farm Progress Show.

The Trimble and DICKEY-john "hybrid" systems will set new standards for the precision agriculture industry by offering growers:
-- One-stop shopping for complete, seamless precision farming systems through Trimble and DICKEY-john's dealer networks. -- Buy-when-needed modules that will allow growers to add new functionality-such as GPS automated steering, application monitoring and control, or field data management-when their operations require it. -- Less cab clutter and fast, easy access to GPS guidance and application controls through a single cab display. Display options will include the DICKEY-john IntelliAg(TM) virtual terminal display or Trimble(R) AgGPS(R) FieldManager(TM) display. Each option will provide full integration of both companies' precision farming systems. -- The ability to install both companies' new "hybrid" precision farming systems on equipment in multi-branded fleets.

For example, DICKEY-john customers will be able to integrate....(link)

By integrating the technologies offered by the two companies, Precision Farming applications will be more easily implemented as well as more easily "ramped up." This is a positive development for farmers.

Farming vs. Environment

Is modern agriculture detrimental to the environment? Probably, but less so than most other land uses. However, it has improved dramatically in this area from what it was thirty to fifty years ago.

How has it improved?

1. Low-tillage farming methods have reduced moisture loss, reduced soil erosion, reduced fuel consumption, and left crop residue on land through the winter months which is the period that is most difficult for wildlife in terms of food availability.

2. Improved crop varieties and production practices have increased the production per acre. This means that we grow more on less acres of land. As population continues to increase, this will become increasingly important.

3. Several government programs have created incentives to move marginal land from crop production to other purposes. One of the primary mechanisms for this has been the Conservation Reserve Program by which the Federal Government pays a lease to farmers to convert highly erosive land to grassland or forest. Approximately 39 million acres are currently enrolled in this program that were once farmland. These lands now provide a large reservoir of wildlife.

4. New crop varieties have been developed that are resistant to primary pests, thus reducing the need for pesticide application.

5. New crop varieties have been developed that allow the application of broadcast herbicides that effectively control invasive species that limit productivity of the desired species. This actually reduces the amount of herbicide applied relative to past practices. It also reduces the number of trips the farmer must make over the land for plowing, thus reducing the amount of fuel used in weed control.

Some fallacies:

1. The amount of cropland utilized would be reduced by elimination of animals as a food source. In fact, a large portion of animal feed, especially for cattle, is from the utilization of crop residues or of low-productivity land. Most grassland is poor farmland. Corn stubble, cotton burrs, cottonseed hulls, distillers grains (leftover from the production of ethanol), and other food crop bi-products are utilized for cattle feed.

2. The idea proposed by some is that crop production used as animal feed is unnecessary and could be eliminated, thus freeing land for human food production. In the United States, we continue to have a significant reservoir of land that is under-utilized. Government programs today artificially restrict land use by farmers. This is to create a level of price support for their produce. They are competing against government subsidized farming in South America, Australia, and Canada. The structure of such programs is to create a level of national security by maintaining our food production infrastructure rather than allowing our farmers to go out of business and creating undue dependence on foreign food sources. This is part of a “cheap food” policy that allows American consumers to spend a smaller portion of their income on food than any other country in the world.

Other thoughts:

One of the most significant factors to impact food production and the environment in the past 30-50 years is urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is caused by the desire of people who have the economic means to do so, to leave the city proper where they work, and move to the country. This is due to the perception, which I believe to be fact, that the suburban or rural quality of life is higher than the urban quality of life. This trend increases the use of fossil fuel for transportation, removes land from agricultural productivity, removes land from wildlife and recreational use, and creates infrastructure problems for utilities, garbage, zoning, and other basic services. To truly make a positive impact on the environment, we must examine all facets of land use – not just farming.

Finally, farmers depend upon the productivity of their land to remain in business. The successful ones are good stewards of the resources that are in their care. It is in their best interest to take care of the land.

Ruminations on Energy Production

I couldn't decide whether this article fit into agriculture or energy...

Cow-powered Fuel Cells Grow Smaller, Mightier

Science Daily — Cows could one day help to meet the rise in demand for alternative energy sources, say Ohio State University researchers that used microbe-rich fluid from a cow to generate electricity in a small fuel cell.

This new microbial fuel cell is a redesign of a larger model that the researchers created a few years ago. The new cell is a quarter of the size of the original model, yet can produce about three times the power, said Hamid Rismani-Yazdi, a doctoral student in food, agricultural and biological engineering at Ohio State University.

Experiments showed that it took two of the new cells to produce enough electricity to recharge a AA-sized battery. It took four of the first-generation fuel cells to recharge just one of these batteries.

Rismani-Yazdi is the lead author of a new study of cellulose-based microbial fuel cells. The source of power for these fuel cells comes from the breakdown of cellulose by a variety of bacteria in rumen fluid, the microbe-rich fluid found in a cow's rumen, the largest chamber of a cow's stomach. To create power, researchers fill one compartment of a microbial fuel cell with cellulose and rumen fluid.

“Energy is produced as the bacteria break down cellulose, which is one of the most abundant resources on our planet,” said Rismani-Yazdi. Indeed, cellulose is plentiful on most farms, as harvesting usually leaves plenty behind in the form of crop residue in fields. Other prime sources of cellulose include waste paper and items made of wood.

Rismani-Yazdi and his colleagues are continuing to refine their microbial fuel cells, as well as trying to figure out how to grow mass amounts of rumen microbes in the laboratory for possible large-scale use in the future.

The researchers reported the findings August 21 at the American Chemical Society meeting in Boston. Rismani-Yazdi worked with his mentor Ann Christy, an associate professor of food, agricultural and biological engineering at Ohio State and with Olli Tuovinen, a professor of microbiology at the university.

The team collected rumen fluid from a living cow, extracting the fluid through a cannula, a surgically implanted porthole that leads directly into its rumen. They filled one compartment of a fuel cell with this microbe-rich fluid and with cellulose.

The microbial fuel cell, which has two compartments, is about two inches wide and three inches in height and length. A thin membrane made of special material separates the two compartments. This material allows protons to move from the negative (anode) compartment into the positive (cathode) compartment.

This movement of protons, along with the movement of electrons across the wire and resistor that connect the two compartments, creates an electrical current.

A small piece of graphite placed inside each compartment served as a fuel cell's electrodes (an electrode draws and emits electrical charge.) The researchers filled the anode chamber with cellulose and with microbes derived from rumen fluid. Electrons are released as the microorganisms break down the cellulose.

These electrons are then transferred to the anode electrode.

The researchers filled the other chamber, the cathode, with potassium ferricyanide, a chemical that acts as an oxidizing agent and helps close the electrical circuit by accepting electrons from the cathode electrode. Once the circuit is closed, electrons flow from the anode to the cathode, creating electricity.

The microbial fuel cells with the least amount of resistance produced the most power – enough to run a miniature Christmas tree light bulb, Christy said. That's about three times more power than their first-generation fuel cells were capable of producing.

“The amount of electricity that we can get out of one of these cells is ultimately related to the resistance of the object that we want to power,” Rismani-Yazdi said.

He said that he typically adds cellulose to the fuel cells every two days, although that amount can vary depending on how quickly power is drained from the cell.

“But the power output of these fuel cells is sustainable indefinitely as long as we keep feeding the bacteria with cellulose,” Christy said. “We ran these cells for three months.”

Although the technology is still in its infancy, the researchers are encouraged by how far they've come in the last two years, and they are continuing their efforts to increase the amount of power these microbial fuel cells can produce.

Partial support for this work was provided by the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center as well as the College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at Ohio State.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Ohio State University.

OK. The first thing that comes to mind is a cow standing in the trunk of a car with a cord plugged into her side (into the rumen) and running to the engine. I'm sure you thought the same thing.

Realistically though, this research may very well dovetail with the research being conducted on cellulosic based ethanol production. The rumen of a cow is the most efficient mechanism known for breaking down fibrous plants into energy. A cow is a very efficient user of roughage -- grasses, etc. The four-compartmented stomach of the cow (one compartment of which is the rumen) is the reason they can do this. This research may be an important step in moving away from starch-based ethanol production to the use of grasses and other fibrous plant materials. Duplicating and sustaining the combination of microbes from the rumen of a cow in a biomass reduction chamber is the key to this process.