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.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, August 27, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Cattle Health and Persistent Infection of BVD Virus
As fall approaches, many livestock producers are preparing to stock anticipated wheat pasture. Health issues are one of the annual battles that they must face as they try to get the stocker cattle straightened out and ready to grow. Respiratory disease is the primary health issue that must be dealt with in these cattle. It is the same issue that is faced daily in the feedlots and dairies around the country.
BVD (Bovine Viral Diarrhea) virus has been identified as one of the leading causes of respiratory disease in cattle. Although it poses no human health concerns, it is an economically devastating disease when it is present in a cattle herd.
What is a PI calf?
When present, BVD has been determined to negatively impact conception rates in a breeding herd by as much as 5%. This means fewer pregnant cows. BVD also causes abortion in cows so that although they may have become pregnant, there is no calf to sell. It also is a contributing factor to weak calves. Many calves born live only a few days and then die. Their immune system has been compromised while in their mother’s womb when she was exposed to BVD.
BVD is unique in that it also can cause calves to become persistently infected (PI) while in the womb. It is a permanent infection that occurs if the cow is exposed to the BVD virus during the first trimester of pregnancy. When she is exposed, the BVD virus begins to circulate within her system and thus within the calf’s system. If the fetal calf is exposed to the BVD virus prior to immune competency (that point at which the immune system begins functioning), the BVD is recognized as part of “self” and therefore ignored. The calf’s immune system “assumes” that the BVD virus which was present at the point of “self-recognition” is normal and so it ignores it throughout the lifetime of the calf.
The challenge of PI cattle.
These persistently infected calves are the primary means of spreading the BVD virus throughout the cattle industry. Because their immune system ignores the virus, the BVD proliferates within their body. They often look healthy because their immune system makes no attempt to combat the virus. When this happens, they shed viral particles at an extremely high rate that has been estimated to be as much as 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 viral particles daily. This extreme viral shed occurs every day throughout the calf’s life.
When healthy cattle come into contact with these PI calves, their immune system is challenged by the virus particles that begin to attack them. If the healthy animal has a thoroughly functioning immune system that has developed resistance to the BVD virus, it is likely that they will not succumb to the onslaught. However, if their immune system is unable to combat the BVD attack, they will become sick with the disease.
Healthy cattle that have been conditioned with proper vaccinations and who are in excellent health and are not subjected to extraordinary stressing factors will usually resist the BVD virus. If these healthy cattle are stressed though, such as through gathering, weaning, shipping, processing, or co-mingling with other cattle, their immune system likely is not working at its peak. In such case, there is an increased probability that they will be impacted negatively by exposure to the BVD virus. Sometimes this impact is manifested in clinical signs but often it is a sub-clinical infection that may not cause the exhibition of symptoms, but will impact their performance. If an animal is expending energy fighting off the BVD attack, he is using energy that should be building muscle.
BVD not only attacks the animal directly as a disease, but is also an immuno-suppressant. This means that it causes the immune system to temporarily become unable to adequately fight against other diseases that may be present. This opens the animal up to sickness if he is exposed to bacteria or other viruses during the suppressed period. This is frequently the case when the animals are in a confined condition such as a feedlot, or when they have been mixed with other cattle that may be carrying diseases to which they have not yet built immunity such as assembling stocker cattle.
The economic impact of PI cattle.
There have been several studies throughout the world that were conducted to determine the economic impact of BVD on cattle. These studies indicated a negative impact that ranged from $10 per head to as high as $60 per head. The studies looked at the impact at the cow herd level all the way through the feedlot and in dairies. One particular study focused on bringing calves into the feedlot and carrying them through to finish. The impact in that particular study was in excess of $42 per head across the entire feedlot population.
Although there have been few studies conducted on yearling cattle in the feedlot, one must wonder at the impact of the constant exposure to PI cattle on performance. Again, if an animal is expending energy fighting off disease, he is utilizing energy that should be building muscle.
Data collected by one large commercial laboratory devoted to testing for the persistently infected animals indicates that in 700 lb. yearling cattle, the prevalence of PI animals is approximately 0.2%. That is 2 animals per every 1,000. That doesn’t seem like many until you think of the typical feedlot configuration of 100 head pens in alleys of adjacent pens where there are frequently shared water tanks between pens. In such a scenario, 2 per 1000 could potentially affect as much as 60% of the population of animals in the yard through in-pen and cross-fence exposure. When one considers the viral shed rate of 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 particles daily, there are a lot of animals being continually exposed to the BVD virus.
In lighter calves, the number of PI’s per 1,000 head is much higher. In 300 lb. salebarn calves, it is approximately .75%, or 7-8 animals per 1,000 head. This higher percentage of PI calves significantly increases the risk of exposure to the BVD disease.
Testing for PI animals.
Testing for these PI animals is a simple procedure. Utilizing a small V-type ear notcher, a piece of ear tissue is sampled from each animal and placed in a properly labeled plastic vial for transport to the laboratory for testing. The test takes anywhere from a few hours to several days to run at the lab, depending on the type of test used, and the results are reported back to the producer. The producer then can remove any persistently infected animal from the general population thus eliminating the continual exposure of the remaining animals to the BVD virus.
There are several testing methods available for detecting the PI animals. They are: 1) Viral isolation which requires the culturing of the BVD virus from the animal’s blood or other tissue. This is an extremely time-consuming and expensive test. It requires that a second sample be taken from the animal after about 3 weeks. It is not practical for detecting PI animals but is useful in determining the presence of BVD in an animal and is the first step in determining the particular strain of BVD infecting the animal. 2) Immuno-histo-chemistry is another type of test for BVD. It is done from a thin slice of skin tissue that is stained and examined manually under a microscope for the BVD. It also requires a second sample from an animal in about 3 weeks. 3) Pooled PCR or polymerase chain reaction sampling is a technology that has recently been applied to BVD. One of the inherent problems of this technology is that it has been shown to miss PI animals a significant percentage of the time. This is because of the fact that samples from multiple animals are pooled together before being tested.This problem has been overcome by including internal controls in the pools that are indicators of whether the reaction was influenced by inhibitors. If those inhibitions are detected, the pools are further tested under different conditions. There is now a USDA licensed test on the market that includes a pooling claim. If your lab is using PCR, make certain they are using the USDA licensed test and methodology. 4) ACE or antigen capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, is another test that is available for testing for the PI animals. It is reliable, inexpensive, and provides for quick turnaround of results. Usually results are obtained within 24 hours of submission of the samples. There are multiple ACE or ELISA tests available on the market. There is high variability in the quality of results obtained. The very first test to obtain USDA licensing was an antigen capture ELISA or ACE test. It's pioneering technology was created by Syracuse laboratories, licensed by a large diagnostic company and marketed under their brand. They have since replaced that technology with their second generation test which incorporates patented technology developed for the European markets where government regulation rather than economics drives the decision for testing. It is extremely sensitive and may indicate a positive status for animals that are transiently infected with the BVD virus but are not true PI's. The quality of results obtained are often closely related to the experience of the laboratory technician.
What do I do with them?
Proper disposition of animals identified as persistently infected is critical. They should be either 1) humanely slaughtered once any drug withdrawal periods are completed, or 2) destroyed immediately. It is unethical to return such animals to the market via an auction or private sale. The meat from such animals is perfectly safe for human consumption. Their identification and removal from production may also decrease antibiotic usage among remaining animals which both saves cost for the producer and limits the chances of the development of antibiotic resistance.
Risk to cow herds.
The ideal place for PI testing to occur is at the cow-calf level. Many ranchers are concerned about realizing a return for the testing and opt to let it occur at some later point in the production chain. By doing so, they ignore the positive impact that the elimination of BVD can have on their herd. By removing PI animals, BVD then becomes a matter of bio-security. The rancher must continually monitor his herd due to potential cross-fence exposure from the neighbor’s cattle (such as yearlings) and from the introduction of untested cattle into his herd. With a potential increase of 5% to conception rates as well as the reduction of the number of weak calves, the increase in weaned calves for sale should compensate the producer many times over for the cost of testing and monitoring.
Because of the fragmentation of production within the cattle industry in the United States, it is unlikely that BVD will ever be completely eliminated. That is why testing is important at all phases of production – whether it be at the cow-calf, stocker, or feedlot level. The positive economic impact of removing PI animals and of implementing a good bio-security program provides the opportunity for significant benefit at all points of production through the reduction in the number of sick animals, fewer dead animals, and better performance because the animals are able to devote their energy to growth rather than fighting the constant exposure to the BVD virus.
BVD (Bovine Viral Diarrhea) virus has been identified as one of the leading causes of respiratory disease in cattle. Although it poses no human health concerns, it is an economically devastating disease when it is present in a cattle herd.
What is a PI calf?
When present, BVD has been determined to negatively impact conception rates in a breeding herd by as much as 5%. This means fewer pregnant cows. BVD also causes abortion in cows so that although they may have become pregnant, there is no calf to sell. It also is a contributing factor to weak calves. Many calves born live only a few days and then die. Their immune system has been compromised while in their mother’s womb when she was exposed to BVD.
BVD is unique in that it also can cause calves to become persistently infected (PI) while in the womb. It is a permanent infection that occurs if the cow is exposed to the BVD virus during the first trimester of pregnancy. When she is exposed, the BVD virus begins to circulate within her system and thus within the calf’s system. If the fetal calf is exposed to the BVD virus prior to immune competency (that point at which the immune system begins functioning), the BVD is recognized as part of “self” and therefore ignored. The calf’s immune system “assumes” that the BVD virus which was present at the point of “self-recognition” is normal and so it ignores it throughout the lifetime of the calf.
The challenge of PI cattle.
These persistently infected calves are the primary means of spreading the BVD virus throughout the cattle industry. Because their immune system ignores the virus, the BVD proliferates within their body. They often look healthy because their immune system makes no attempt to combat the virus. When this happens, they shed viral particles at an extremely high rate that has been estimated to be as much as 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 viral particles daily. This extreme viral shed occurs every day throughout the calf’s life.
When healthy cattle come into contact with these PI calves, their immune system is challenged by the virus particles that begin to attack them. If the healthy animal has a thoroughly functioning immune system that has developed resistance to the BVD virus, it is likely that they will not succumb to the onslaught. However, if their immune system is unable to combat the BVD attack, they will become sick with the disease.
Healthy cattle that have been conditioned with proper vaccinations and who are in excellent health and are not subjected to extraordinary stressing factors will usually resist the BVD virus. If these healthy cattle are stressed though, such as through gathering, weaning, shipping, processing, or co-mingling with other cattle, their immune system likely is not working at its peak. In such case, there is an increased probability that they will be impacted negatively by exposure to the BVD virus. Sometimes this impact is manifested in clinical signs but often it is a sub-clinical infection that may not cause the exhibition of symptoms, but will impact their performance. If an animal is expending energy fighting off the BVD attack, he is using energy that should be building muscle.
BVD not only attacks the animal directly as a disease, but is also an immuno-suppressant. This means that it causes the immune system to temporarily become unable to adequately fight against other diseases that may be present. This opens the animal up to sickness if he is exposed to bacteria or other viruses during the suppressed period. This is frequently the case when the animals are in a confined condition such as a feedlot, or when they have been mixed with other cattle that may be carrying diseases to which they have not yet built immunity such as assembling stocker cattle.
The economic impact of PI cattle.
There have been several studies throughout the world that were conducted to determine the economic impact of BVD on cattle. These studies indicated a negative impact that ranged from $10 per head to as high as $60 per head. The studies looked at the impact at the cow herd level all the way through the feedlot and in dairies. One particular study focused on bringing calves into the feedlot and carrying them through to finish. The impact in that particular study was in excess of $42 per head across the entire feedlot population.
Although there have been few studies conducted on yearling cattle in the feedlot, one must wonder at the impact of the constant exposure to PI cattle on performance. Again, if an animal is expending energy fighting off disease, he is utilizing energy that should be building muscle.
Data collected by one large commercial laboratory devoted to testing for the persistently infected animals indicates that in 700 lb. yearling cattle, the prevalence of PI animals is approximately 0.2%. That is 2 animals per every 1,000. That doesn’t seem like many until you think of the typical feedlot configuration of 100 head pens in alleys of adjacent pens where there are frequently shared water tanks between pens. In such a scenario, 2 per 1000 could potentially affect as much as 60% of the population of animals in the yard through in-pen and cross-fence exposure. When one considers the viral shed rate of 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 particles daily, there are a lot of animals being continually exposed to the BVD virus.
In lighter calves, the number of PI’s per 1,000 head is much higher. In 300 lb. salebarn calves, it is approximately .75%, or 7-8 animals per 1,000 head. This higher percentage of PI calves significantly increases the risk of exposure to the BVD disease.
Testing for PI animals.
Testing for these PI animals is a simple procedure. Utilizing a small V-type ear notcher, a piece of ear tissue is sampled from each animal and placed in a properly labeled plastic vial for transport to the laboratory for testing. The test takes anywhere from a few hours to several days to run at the lab, depending on the type of test used, and the results are reported back to the producer. The producer then can remove any persistently infected animal from the general population thus eliminating the continual exposure of the remaining animals to the BVD virus.
There are several testing methods available for detecting the PI animals. They are: 1) Viral isolation which requires the culturing of the BVD virus from the animal’s blood or other tissue. This is an extremely time-consuming and expensive test. It requires that a second sample be taken from the animal after about 3 weeks. It is not practical for detecting PI animals but is useful in determining the presence of BVD in an animal and is the first step in determining the particular strain of BVD infecting the animal. 2) Immuno-histo-chemistry is another type of test for BVD. It is done from a thin slice of skin tissue that is stained and examined manually under a microscope for the BVD. It also requires a second sample from an animal in about 3 weeks. 3) Pooled PCR or polymerase chain reaction sampling is a technology that has recently been applied to BVD. One of the inherent problems of this technology is that it has been shown to miss PI animals a significant percentage of the time. This is because of the fact that samples from multiple animals are pooled together before being tested.This problem has been overcome by including internal controls in the pools that are indicators of whether the reaction was influenced by inhibitors. If those inhibitions are detected, the pools are further tested under different conditions. There is now a USDA licensed test on the market that includes a pooling claim. If your lab is using PCR, make certain they are using the USDA licensed test and methodology. 4) ACE or antigen capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, is another test that is available for testing for the PI animals. It is reliable, inexpensive, and provides for quick turnaround of results. Usually results are obtained within 24 hours of submission of the samples. There are multiple ACE or ELISA tests available on the market. There is high variability in the quality of results obtained. The very first test to obtain USDA licensing was an antigen capture ELISA or ACE test. It's pioneering technology was created by Syracuse laboratories, licensed by a large diagnostic company and marketed under their brand. They have since replaced that technology with their second generation test which incorporates patented technology developed for the European markets where government regulation rather than economics drives the decision for testing. It is extremely sensitive and may indicate a positive status for animals that are transiently infected with the BVD virus but are not true PI's. The quality of results obtained are often closely related to the experience of the laboratory technician.
What do I do with them?
Proper disposition of animals identified as persistently infected is critical. They should be either 1) humanely slaughtered once any drug withdrawal periods are completed, or 2) destroyed immediately. It is unethical to return such animals to the market via an auction or private sale. The meat from such animals is perfectly safe for human consumption. Their identification and removal from production may also decrease antibiotic usage among remaining animals which both saves cost for the producer and limits the chances of the development of antibiotic resistance.
Risk to cow herds.
The ideal place for PI testing to occur is at the cow-calf level. Many ranchers are concerned about realizing a return for the testing and opt to let it occur at some later point in the production chain. By doing so, they ignore the positive impact that the elimination of BVD can have on their herd. By removing PI animals, BVD then becomes a matter of bio-security. The rancher must continually monitor his herd due to potential cross-fence exposure from the neighbor’s cattle (such as yearlings) and from the introduction of untested cattle into his herd. With a potential increase of 5% to conception rates as well as the reduction of the number of weak calves, the increase in weaned calves for sale should compensate the producer many times over for the cost of testing and monitoring.
Because of the fragmentation of production within the cattle industry in the United States, it is unlikely that BVD will ever be completely eliminated. That is why testing is important at all phases of production – whether it be at the cow-calf, stocker, or feedlot level. The positive economic impact of removing PI animals and of implementing a good bio-security program provides the opportunity for significant benefit at all points of production through the reduction in the number of sick animals, fewer dead animals, and better performance because the animals are able to devote their energy to growth rather than fighting the constant exposure to the BVD virus.
Friday, August 24, 2007
The Power of the Waves
Following is a link to an interesting article in "Technology Review" published by MIT. It is concerning the harnessing of wave action to produce electricity utilizing an artificial polymer "muscle." The claims are that this technology could eventually rival wind turbine energy production. Today the technology remains in the developmental stage.
Harvesting Power from the Ocean
A new technology could generate electricity from waves.
As we move forward in the production of energy from new technology, great care should be taken in where such projects are located. Unlike oil and gas production which is tied to the location of recoverable deposits, power generation by wave technology is not as restricted. Certainly wave height and form are a consideration, but aesthetic and recreational issues must also be considered as well as the local ecology, transmission efficiency and shipping. The wave fields should be located as near as possible to major metropolitan areas while at the same time avoiding the constriction of shipping lanes. I also am concerned about disruption of fragile ecological areas. With the knowledge learned from oil and gas production and the consequent impact on the environment, we have the opportunity to take a proactive approach to creating a balance between the need for alternative energy sources and conservation of natural resources. This does not mean preservation at the expense of energy. It implies sustainability. Perhaps energy "zoning" might be in order.
Harvesting Power from the Ocean
A new technology could generate electricity from waves.
As we move forward in the production of energy from new technology, great care should be taken in where such projects are located. Unlike oil and gas production which is tied to the location of recoverable deposits, power generation by wave technology is not as restricted. Certainly wave height and form are a consideration, but aesthetic and recreational issues must also be considered as well as the local ecology, transmission efficiency and shipping. The wave fields should be located as near as possible to major metropolitan areas while at the same time avoiding the constriction of shipping lanes. I also am concerned about disruption of fragile ecological areas. With the knowledge learned from oil and gas production and the consequent impact on the environment, we have the opportunity to take a proactive approach to creating a balance between the need for alternative energy sources and conservation of natural resources. This does not mean preservation at the expense of energy. It implies sustainability. Perhaps energy "zoning" might be in order.
Precision Farming
Today’s crop varieties have tremendous genetic potential to produce yields far above those normally realized in production practice. Unlocking this potential could have significant impact on our economy as well as on the financial well-being of America’s farmers. It has been estimated that a 1% improvement in farming efficiency results in a $2 billion annual impact on the gross national product of the country.
Scientists have been working since the introduction of large-scale farming in the early part of the last century to improve farming efficiency and to increase yields. The benefit to the consumer is cheaper food. The benefit to the farmer is improved potential for profitable operation.
Many of the newest advances in farming efficiency in recent years are in the area of Precision Agriculture (PA). PA is a broad term that encompasses many aspects of farming rolled into a holistic approach to improved efficiency. Historically, because of the need to operate on a large scale for economic efficiency, farmers have managed on a field or whole farm basis. This type of management allowed them to utilize large-scale mechanized devices with a minimum of labor. The technique did not allow for the variability within a field or across a farm of such factors as soil type, slope, weed infestations, nutrient availability, insect infestations, water availability, and so on. PA is an attempt to manage for the variability in these factors.
With the availability of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to agriculture which began in the early 1990’s, it suddenly became possible to manage crop production on a smaller scale. Rather than looking at averages for a field, the farmer could look at smaller units such as the acre. This afforded the opportunity to manage seed rates and fertilizer application more closely to the specific soil types in each area of a field. Such micro-level management creates the possibility of increasing yields while simultaneously lowering input costs.
Coupling GPS technologies with soil mapping and variable rate computer controlled planting equipment allows the farmer to adjust plant spacing to optimize for soil conditions. This might result in denser planting in flat alluvial type soils and perhaps wider plant spacing on slopes where moisture availability and thin soils will not support a denser plant population. When traditionally farmed on an average planting rate for the field, plants would be too dense on the slope and too sparse on the flat alluvial soil.
The same concept applies to fertilization. When coupled with soil nutrient and type mapping, application rates for Nitrogen or other fertilizers can be varied based on the conditions of narrowly defined areas within a field. Fertilization rates will need to be adjusted for plant densities such as in the areas discussed previously.
When applied to pivot irrigation systems, the mapping technology can be used to adjust flow rate and speed of travel depending on specific points in a field. This will provide more efficient and effective application of water with a minimum of runoff.
The equipment for implementing a PA program on a farming operation is expensive but is rapidly becoming more economical. The costs will vary according to the farmer’s existing equipment and practices and potential benefits will depend on the specific enterprises.
The potential benefits of PA extend beyond the improved efficiency for those farming operations that are able to utilize it. By more closely controlling fertilizer, pesticide and water application, there may be a favorable impact on the environment. By reducing the excess application of fertilizer or pesticides, the likelihood of runoff into adjacent streams and playas is virtually eliminated. The overall environment will benefit.
Precision Agriculture will continue to evolve as new technologies are developed. It will be integral to the leadership position that American farmers continue to enjoy in the world.
Scientists have been working since the introduction of large-scale farming in the early part of the last century to improve farming efficiency and to increase yields. The benefit to the consumer is cheaper food. The benefit to the farmer is improved potential for profitable operation.
Many of the newest advances in farming efficiency in recent years are in the area of Precision Agriculture (PA). PA is a broad term that encompasses many aspects of farming rolled into a holistic approach to improved efficiency. Historically, because of the need to operate on a large scale for economic efficiency, farmers have managed on a field or whole farm basis. This type of management allowed them to utilize large-scale mechanized devices with a minimum of labor. The technique did not allow for the variability within a field or across a farm of such factors as soil type, slope, weed infestations, nutrient availability, insect infestations, water availability, and so on. PA is an attempt to manage for the variability in these factors.
With the availability of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to agriculture which began in the early 1990’s, it suddenly became possible to manage crop production on a smaller scale. Rather than looking at averages for a field, the farmer could look at smaller units such as the acre. This afforded the opportunity to manage seed rates and fertilizer application more closely to the specific soil types in each area of a field. Such micro-level management creates the possibility of increasing yields while simultaneously lowering input costs.
Coupling GPS technologies with soil mapping and variable rate computer controlled planting equipment allows the farmer to adjust plant spacing to optimize for soil conditions. This might result in denser planting in flat alluvial type soils and perhaps wider plant spacing on slopes where moisture availability and thin soils will not support a denser plant population. When traditionally farmed on an average planting rate for the field, plants would be too dense on the slope and too sparse on the flat alluvial soil.
The same concept applies to fertilization. When coupled with soil nutrient and type mapping, application rates for Nitrogen or other fertilizers can be varied based on the conditions of narrowly defined areas within a field. Fertilization rates will need to be adjusted for plant densities such as in the areas discussed previously.
When applied to pivot irrigation systems, the mapping technology can be used to adjust flow rate and speed of travel depending on specific points in a field. This will provide more efficient and effective application of water with a minimum of runoff.
The equipment for implementing a PA program on a farming operation is expensive but is rapidly becoming more economical. The costs will vary according to the farmer’s existing equipment and practices and potential benefits will depend on the specific enterprises.
The potential benefits of PA extend beyond the improved efficiency for those farming operations that are able to utilize it. By more closely controlling fertilizer, pesticide and water application, there may be a favorable impact on the environment. By reducing the excess application of fertilizer or pesticides, the likelihood of runoff into adjacent streams and playas is virtually eliminated. The overall environment will benefit.
Precision Agriculture will continue to evolve as new technologies are developed. It will be integral to the leadership position that American farmers continue to enjoy in the world.
Introduction
This blog arises for a number of reasons. 1) I am interested in Agriculture, Conservation and Energy -- especially new energy technologies. 2) I am now writing a regular column for the Agriculture page of our local newspaper and this will be closely tied to those articles. 3) This gives me a place to aggregate articles of interest to me.
My background is rural America. My education is in Agricultural Economics. My career path is tied closely to the heartland of agricultural production. I believe that we must effectively and efficiently manage and conserve (as opposed to preserve) our natural resources -- this includes land, water, and energy resources.
I hope some of you find the subjects to be of interest too.
My background is rural America. My education is in Agricultural Economics. My career path is tied closely to the heartland of agricultural production. I believe that we must effectively and efficiently manage and conserve (as opposed to preserve) our natural resources -- this includes land, water, and energy resources.
I hope some of you find the subjects to be of interest too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
