I've been writing for the Canyon News for awhile. I decided it was time to "pimp" one of my articles....
Ecosystem complexity, the Lesser Prairie Chicken
The Lesser Prairie-Chicken was once common throughout many parts of the Texas Panhandle. For early explorers and early pioneers of the area, they were a reliable source of food when...(complete article here).
Showing posts with label published. Show all posts
Showing posts with label published. Show all posts
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Attitude
Our attitude determines our response to what life hands us. In many ways, it drives our behavior.
Last week a good friend related to me the story of a two-day trip calling on various beef producers. The trip was designed to include a variety of operations as an educational venture for an executive in his company that had little knowledge of the beef industry. His story illustrates the difference in attitude of each of the producers and how they are responding to the currently trying times in the beef industry. (Disclaimer: Note that either no names are given, or they are changed to protect the innocent and not-so-innocent!)
The first stop on the tour was to an operation that consisted of a small pre-conditioning facility as well as a cow herd and some stocker cattle. This individual had experienced escalating feed costs and had been “burned” by a couple of his pre-conditioning customers. His view was that ethanol was killing the beef industry. To sum it up, he had a “woe is me, the sky is falling” attitude. All he could see was the downside created by escalating feed costs.
The second stop on the tour was to an operation that specialized in buying light weight calves and taking them through a stocker phase before selling them to someone else for finishing. This individual had tried numerous approaches to add value to his cattle but found that “it doesn’t matter what I do, someone else always gets ahead while I just try to survive.” His attitude was one of powerlessness in the face of market realities.
The third stop was to meet with a veterinarian. He felt that although we were currently in a “down” cycle, it would eventually pass. The focus of the conversation with him quickly turned to new technology. He wanted to know what was in development, when would it be available and whether they had considered looking at a list of other possibilities. His attitude was forward-looking and positive.
The fourth stop was to a large cattle feeding operation. The attitude there could be described as “it’s bad but it will be better and this is what we’re doing to make sure we are still in business when it does.” They had a “hunkered-down-in-the-bunker” mentality but saw an improving future. Their attitude was one of “dodging bullets” until it got better.
The fifth stop was to a small pre-conditioning and stocker operation. The owner had experienced a number of setbacks and recently taken a job in town to supplement his income from livestock. He was at the point of feeling “beat up” and not knowing what the future would hold. He realized that much of his predicament was due to decisions that he had made that cost him dearly. It will be a difficult road to recovery, but he was going to give it his best effort. His attitude was one of having been through a fight but not through fighting yet.
The sixth stop was to a small operation that primarily ran stocker cattle. He saw opportunity everywhere. To him, turmoil signaled opportunity. His attitude was one of innovation, forward-thinking and determination to exploit opportunity.
The seventh and final stop was to a large seed stock operation. They felt that things weren’t great right now but were preparing for the future. They were extremely knowledgeable of the global factors affecting their operation and had plans in place to adapt to every conceivable contingency. Their attitude was positive but cautious and designed for what they saw as an uncertain future.
All-in-all, the attitudes were more positive than would be expected given the difficulties the industry faces as it adjusts to the realities of a bio-fuel economy. The operations listed above will be profoundly affected by changes in the beef industry. Their individual attitudes will affect how well they do.
We become what we think – what our minds dwell upon. We react to our surroundings based on our attitude toward the things that we see, feel and experience. Some of the producers in the scenarios enumerated above will survive and thrive. Others will fail. Based on their attitudes, which ones do you think will be the survivors?
Last week a good friend related to me the story of a two-day trip calling on various beef producers. The trip was designed to include a variety of operations as an educational venture for an executive in his company that had little knowledge of the beef industry. His story illustrates the difference in attitude of each of the producers and how they are responding to the currently trying times in the beef industry. (Disclaimer: Note that either no names are given, or they are changed to protect the innocent and not-so-innocent!)
The first stop on the tour was to an operation that consisted of a small pre-conditioning facility as well as a cow herd and some stocker cattle. This individual had experienced escalating feed costs and had been “burned” by a couple of his pre-conditioning customers. His view was that ethanol was killing the beef industry. To sum it up, he had a “woe is me, the sky is falling” attitude. All he could see was the downside created by escalating feed costs.
The second stop on the tour was to an operation that specialized in buying light weight calves and taking them through a stocker phase before selling them to someone else for finishing. This individual had tried numerous approaches to add value to his cattle but found that “it doesn’t matter what I do, someone else always gets ahead while I just try to survive.” His attitude was one of powerlessness in the face of market realities.
The third stop was to meet with a veterinarian. He felt that although we were currently in a “down” cycle, it would eventually pass. The focus of the conversation with him quickly turned to new technology. He wanted to know what was in development, when would it be available and whether they had considered looking at a list of other possibilities. His attitude was forward-looking and positive.
The fourth stop was to a large cattle feeding operation. The attitude there could be described as “it’s bad but it will be better and this is what we’re doing to make sure we are still in business when it does.” They had a “hunkered-down-in-the-bunker” mentality but saw an improving future. Their attitude was one of “dodging bullets” until it got better.
The fifth stop was to a small pre-conditioning and stocker operation. The owner had experienced a number of setbacks and recently taken a job in town to supplement his income from livestock. He was at the point of feeling “beat up” and not knowing what the future would hold. He realized that much of his predicament was due to decisions that he had made that cost him dearly. It will be a difficult road to recovery, but he was going to give it his best effort. His attitude was one of having been through a fight but not through fighting yet.
The sixth stop was to a small operation that primarily ran stocker cattle. He saw opportunity everywhere. To him, turmoil signaled opportunity. His attitude was one of innovation, forward-thinking and determination to exploit opportunity.
The seventh and final stop was to a large seed stock operation. They felt that things weren’t great right now but were preparing for the future. They were extremely knowledgeable of the global factors affecting their operation and had plans in place to adapt to every conceivable contingency. Their attitude was positive but cautious and designed for what they saw as an uncertain future.
All-in-all, the attitudes were more positive than would be expected given the difficulties the industry faces as it adjusts to the realities of a bio-fuel economy. The operations listed above will be profoundly affected by changes in the beef industry. Their individual attitudes will affect how well they do.
We become what we think – what our minds dwell upon. We react to our surroundings based on our attitude toward the things that we see, feel and experience. Some of the producers in the scenarios enumerated above will survive and thrive. Others will fail. Based on their attitudes, which ones do you think will be the survivors?
Friday, February 22, 2008
Where Is The Beef?
Cattle producers are facing a wild-and-crazy ride over the coming months. This year promises to be even more unpredictable than the last few.
A number of factors will significantly impact cattlemen and livestock markets. One of the big ones is that it is an election year. The different political parties have different approaches to how best to manage the economy. They each have different priorities on how our tax dollars are spent. They each have different attitudes toward the role of government (although those differences are not as distinguishable as they once were). The projected and final outcome of first, the primaries, and then the general election, will add volatility to markets that are already bouncing all over the spectrum. It would be nice to have a crystal ball.
Ethanol will continue to be a major factor influencing beef production. The immediate impact is at the feedlot where cost-of-gain is heavily influenced by corn prices. That impact ripples back through the supply chain to impact feeder cattle prices, stocker cattle prices and ultimately cow prices.
Commodity prices, which are currently being driven to a large extent by ethanol, also affect land use allocation on farming operations. Some lands that have traditionally been used for grazing are being shifted to crop production. Crops that are usually grazed, such as wheat in the southern plains states, are now being held back from grazing because the value of the grain production outweighs the value of leasing the crop to pasture cattle. Recent reports indicate that cattle on wheat pasture this winter were over one million head fewer than last year. Part of that was due to drought conditions, but part of it is due to the desire of the farmers to harvest the wheat for grain because of extremely favorable prices.
We still don’t have a Farm Bill. The uncertainty stemming from the lack of a Farm Bill impacts both commodity and livestock prices. We don’t know what payment caps may be placed on direct payments. We don’t know what taxes may be added. We don’t know how much emphasis will be placed on conservation and energy measures. In short, we really don’t know anything until a bill is passed. This may be the single biggest factor for determining markets over the coming year.
What will happen in the export markets? We have dealt with the BSE crisis and with bone fragments in exported beef. We have been negotiating for years with some countries over easing import restrictions. There appears to be some progress, but the outcome is uncertain at best. The level of exports has a tremendous impact on the price of beef.
Drought in some key beef production areas has impacted calf production. The Southeastern U.S. is one of the most important cow/calf areas of the country. A large portion of their cow herd has been liquidated due to drought conditions the last couple of years.
Other trends that are impacting cattle numbers include things like urban sprawl. Many cities and suburbs have expanded into areas that were once prime cattle producing ranches. Central Texas and the Dallas-Fort Worth areas have become covered with housing developments where cattle once grazed. Hunting and other recreational uses have also removed many ranches from production. Often, hunting leases are tied to exclusive use rights – in other words, no cattle grazing in conjunction with the hunting lease. National forest and BLM lands are also under increasing pressure from environmentalists to reduce grazing. Droughts in western states have further reduced the carrying capacity of much of the federally managed lands.
For the beef producer, there may be some glimmer of hope. Reduced cattle inventories will eventually lead to improved prices for those who remain in business – especially if export markets are re-opened. Increased beef prices will help to offset the negative impact of higher feed prices. Higher feed prices will lend toward a shorter feeding period which may contribute to a shortening of the marketing cycle. This should translate into smaller carcasses and an overall reduction in beef production which will further increase beef prices.
For the consumer it looks like higher beef prices are definitely in the future.
A number of factors will significantly impact cattlemen and livestock markets. One of the big ones is that it is an election year. The different political parties have different approaches to how best to manage the economy. They each have different priorities on how our tax dollars are spent. They each have different attitudes toward the role of government (although those differences are not as distinguishable as they once were). The projected and final outcome of first, the primaries, and then the general election, will add volatility to markets that are already bouncing all over the spectrum. It would be nice to have a crystal ball.
Ethanol will continue to be a major factor influencing beef production. The immediate impact is at the feedlot where cost-of-gain is heavily influenced by corn prices. That impact ripples back through the supply chain to impact feeder cattle prices, stocker cattle prices and ultimately cow prices.
Commodity prices, which are currently being driven to a large extent by ethanol, also affect land use allocation on farming operations. Some lands that have traditionally been used for grazing are being shifted to crop production. Crops that are usually grazed, such as wheat in the southern plains states, are now being held back from grazing because the value of the grain production outweighs the value of leasing the crop to pasture cattle. Recent reports indicate that cattle on wheat pasture this winter were over one million head fewer than last year. Part of that was due to drought conditions, but part of it is due to the desire of the farmers to harvest the wheat for grain because of extremely favorable prices.
We still don’t have a Farm Bill. The uncertainty stemming from the lack of a Farm Bill impacts both commodity and livestock prices. We don’t know what payment caps may be placed on direct payments. We don’t know what taxes may be added. We don’t know how much emphasis will be placed on conservation and energy measures. In short, we really don’t know anything until a bill is passed. This may be the single biggest factor for determining markets over the coming year.
What will happen in the export markets? We have dealt with the BSE crisis and with bone fragments in exported beef. We have been negotiating for years with some countries over easing import restrictions. There appears to be some progress, but the outcome is uncertain at best. The level of exports has a tremendous impact on the price of beef.
Drought in some key beef production areas has impacted calf production. The Southeastern U.S. is one of the most important cow/calf areas of the country. A large portion of their cow herd has been liquidated due to drought conditions the last couple of years.
Other trends that are impacting cattle numbers include things like urban sprawl. Many cities and suburbs have expanded into areas that were once prime cattle producing ranches. Central Texas and the Dallas-Fort Worth areas have become covered with housing developments where cattle once grazed. Hunting and other recreational uses have also removed many ranches from production. Often, hunting leases are tied to exclusive use rights – in other words, no cattle grazing in conjunction with the hunting lease. National forest and BLM lands are also under increasing pressure from environmentalists to reduce grazing. Droughts in western states have further reduced the carrying capacity of much of the federally managed lands.
For the beef producer, there may be some glimmer of hope. Reduced cattle inventories will eventually lead to improved prices for those who remain in business – especially if export markets are re-opened. Increased beef prices will help to offset the negative impact of higher feed prices. Higher feed prices will lend toward a shorter feeding period which may contribute to a shortening of the marketing cycle. This should translate into smaller carcasses and an overall reduction in beef production which will further increase beef prices.
For the consumer it looks like higher beef prices are definitely in the future.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Cell Grazing for Improved Pasture Management
Imagine the prairie covered by huge herds of grazing bison. They are constantly moving and constantly eating. Their population density is very high but they rarely graze the same ground for more than a couple of days before moving on. They efficiently utilize the plants that are available to them as they make their way across the grasslands.
It is under such conditions that most of our native grass species evolved. Those plants that thrived under such conditions are the ones that we are familiar with today. They are the species that best utilize our abundant sunlight, good soils and rainfall.
When grazing native or improved pastures, perhaps there would be wisdom in considering the historical grazing patterns under which the forages developed. One method of managing pastures that in many ways resembles the highly concentrated, ever-moving bison herds is cell grazing.
Cell grazing is a pasture management system that divides pastures into small cells that concentrate animals. The basic premise is to graze a cell intensively for a short period of time and then to move the animals to the next cell. Over the course of time, the animals would rotate through all of the paddocks (or cells) and begin the process again. Why is such a system of value?
Forage plants, such as grasses, go through various growth stages. During Stage I growth, a few tentative shoots produce leaves in order to gather the energy from sunshine so that the plant can convert carbon dioxide, water and nutrients from the soil into more plant. This is accomplished through photosynthesis. As the plant becomes better established and is producing enough energy to maintain itself, it moves into Stage II growth. During this second stage, there is slightly less nutritive value in the leaves but abundant production of new growth. This is usually the ideal stage for grazing the plant. If left uneaten, the plant will move into Stage III in which the energy is shifted away from foliage growth and into seed production.
The idea of cell grazing is centered on the growth stages of the grasses to be grazed. Proper timing of moves will enable the grass to produce at its maximum capacity (both for forage production and for energy value) for a longer period of time during the growing season. The timing of animal movement is based on the stage of the plant rather than the calendar. This means that more livestock can be grazed on the same amount of pasture.
There are critical factors that must be considered in a cell grazing system. These include water availability to the animals, the life cycles of the specific forages to be grazed, the cost and type of fencing and the time requirements for monitoring the pasture and moving the animals.
Cell grazing systems require more planning than most traditional grazing systems. Careful attention must be paid to stocking rates, fertilization, a period of rest for the plants, patterns of livestock movement, nutrient value of the forage and the impact of animal density on the particular forage varieties being managed. Mineral supplementation to offset any soil deficiencies may be necessary. It may also be necessary to invest in additional watering facilities as well as fencing. Most cell grazing systems utilize electric fencing as a low-cost and flexible method of dividing pastures.
Cell grazing provides the opportunity for better pasture quality due to the intensive management based on the forage life cycle. It also allows for better utilization of the available forage so that more pounds of beef can be produced on the same amount of land.
This is a great time to evaluate your grazing practices for the coming year. Whether a cell-grazing system is right for a particular operation is something that must be determined by each individual. Whatever the decision, the planning and evaluating process should be beneficial.
It is under such conditions that most of our native grass species evolved. Those plants that thrived under such conditions are the ones that we are familiar with today. They are the species that best utilize our abundant sunlight, good soils and rainfall.
When grazing native or improved pastures, perhaps there would be wisdom in considering the historical grazing patterns under which the forages developed. One method of managing pastures that in many ways resembles the highly concentrated, ever-moving bison herds is cell grazing.
Cell grazing is a pasture management system that divides pastures into small cells that concentrate animals. The basic premise is to graze a cell intensively for a short period of time and then to move the animals to the next cell. Over the course of time, the animals would rotate through all of the paddocks (or cells) and begin the process again. Why is such a system of value?
Forage plants, such as grasses, go through various growth stages. During Stage I growth, a few tentative shoots produce leaves in order to gather the energy from sunshine so that the plant can convert carbon dioxide, water and nutrients from the soil into more plant. This is accomplished through photosynthesis. As the plant becomes better established and is producing enough energy to maintain itself, it moves into Stage II growth. During this second stage, there is slightly less nutritive value in the leaves but abundant production of new growth. This is usually the ideal stage for grazing the plant. If left uneaten, the plant will move into Stage III in which the energy is shifted away from foliage growth and into seed production.
The idea of cell grazing is centered on the growth stages of the grasses to be grazed. Proper timing of moves will enable the grass to produce at its maximum capacity (both for forage production and for energy value) for a longer period of time during the growing season. The timing of animal movement is based on the stage of the plant rather than the calendar. This means that more livestock can be grazed on the same amount of pasture.
There are critical factors that must be considered in a cell grazing system. These include water availability to the animals, the life cycles of the specific forages to be grazed, the cost and type of fencing and the time requirements for monitoring the pasture and moving the animals.
Cell grazing systems require more planning than most traditional grazing systems. Careful attention must be paid to stocking rates, fertilization, a period of rest for the plants, patterns of livestock movement, nutrient value of the forage and the impact of animal density on the particular forage varieties being managed. Mineral supplementation to offset any soil deficiencies may be necessary. It may also be necessary to invest in additional watering facilities as well as fencing. Most cell grazing systems utilize electric fencing as a low-cost and flexible method of dividing pastures.
Cell grazing provides the opportunity for better pasture quality due to the intensive management based on the forage life cycle. It also allows for better utilization of the available forage so that more pounds of beef can be produced on the same amount of land.
This is a great time to evaluate your grazing practices for the coming year. Whether a cell-grazing system is right for a particular operation is something that must be determined by each individual. Whatever the decision, the planning and evaluating process should be beneficial.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The 2008 Farm Bill
I must admit that I have been avoiding the 2008 Farm Bill like the plague. The floor-passed Senate version is 1,876 pages long (it can be viewed on the Internet at http://agriculture.senate.gov/). The complexity of the various provisions requires a law degree to decipher. It is no wonder that it takes our representatives more than a year to come up with a bill that can be passed by both houses of Congress and that would be acceptable to signature by the President. That hasn’t happened yet, but we are finally getting close. Hopefully, there will be a Farm Bill by the end of March.
Most people think of the Farm Bill as providing for price supports to farmers. Such provisions remain a part of the bill but only a small part. The price supports are designed to influence planted acres of various crops in order to provide adequate income to farmers while maintaining “cheap” food prices to the consumer and some level of food security for our nation. Most consumers think of crop price supports as “welfare” for farmers. They usually don’t realize that they are designed to allow market forces to maintain a “cheap” food supply for our country.
Over the years many sections have been added to the farm bill. Some of these sections regulate agricultural markets. Others are oriented more toward conservation practices. Each of these sections has grown with each successive farm bill until they are now quite large. Some of the newest sections in the farm bill are related to energy.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 had a profound impact on the 2008 Farm Bill. It raised the standard for the production of renewable fuels to 9 billion gallons for this year and gradually increases the standard so that by 2022, the U.S. should be producing 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels. In 2022, the amount of renewable fuels should include advanced bio-fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, in the amount of 21 billion gallons. The balance of that will likely remain corn-based ethanol.
Decades ago Congress created the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) within the Department of Agriculture. The CCC was created and given authority to take money directly from the U.S. Treasury for farm programs. This measure was authorized to provide security of income to farmers so that they were not dependent on annual budget appropriations for funding of mandated farm programs. This provision makes the 2008 Farm Bill attractive to legislators as a means of funding their pet bio-fuels projects without the necessity of going through the normal appropriations process. The result is that the Farm Bill has become a political football.
Further complicating the passage of a Farm Bill is the fact that this is a Presidential election year. Each of the political parties sees the bill as a way to potentially manipulate support for their party’s candidate. Because the bill has grown to include so many features and provisions, the potential political leverage has grown to include almost all interest groups. Agriculture generally, and farmers in particular, have effectively lost their ability to have much influence on the process because of the broad range of issues now included.
Some of the new provisions that are related to energy are: 1) The renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements program, 2) Biomass research and development, 3) The Bio-energy program which makes incentive payments to bio-energy producers, 4) The Biomass energy reserve program, 5) Forest bio-energy research and 6) The Sun grant program which focuses on solar power. All of these programs are designed to meet the mandates of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 through the use of the CCC as a funding mechanism so that the programs do not require line-item funding through the appropriations bill.
Hopefully, we will eventually see a Farm Bill passed that will continue to provide a safety net for our nation’s food supply system. If we are to continue to benefit as a nation from a “cheap” and abundant food supply, we must have a strong farm bill. Let your Congressmen know your feelings.
Most people think of the Farm Bill as providing for price supports to farmers. Such provisions remain a part of the bill but only a small part. The price supports are designed to influence planted acres of various crops in order to provide adequate income to farmers while maintaining “cheap” food prices to the consumer and some level of food security for our nation. Most consumers think of crop price supports as “welfare” for farmers. They usually don’t realize that they are designed to allow market forces to maintain a “cheap” food supply for our country.
Over the years many sections have been added to the farm bill. Some of these sections regulate agricultural markets. Others are oriented more toward conservation practices. Each of these sections has grown with each successive farm bill until they are now quite large. Some of the newest sections in the farm bill are related to energy.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 had a profound impact on the 2008 Farm Bill. It raised the standard for the production of renewable fuels to 9 billion gallons for this year and gradually increases the standard so that by 2022, the U.S. should be producing 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels. In 2022, the amount of renewable fuels should include advanced bio-fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, in the amount of 21 billion gallons. The balance of that will likely remain corn-based ethanol.
Decades ago Congress created the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) within the Department of Agriculture. The CCC was created and given authority to take money directly from the U.S. Treasury for farm programs. This measure was authorized to provide security of income to farmers so that they were not dependent on annual budget appropriations for funding of mandated farm programs. This provision makes the 2008 Farm Bill attractive to legislators as a means of funding their pet bio-fuels projects without the necessity of going through the normal appropriations process. The result is that the Farm Bill has become a political football.
Further complicating the passage of a Farm Bill is the fact that this is a Presidential election year. Each of the political parties sees the bill as a way to potentially manipulate support for their party’s candidate. Because the bill has grown to include so many features and provisions, the potential political leverage has grown to include almost all interest groups. Agriculture generally, and farmers in particular, have effectively lost their ability to have much influence on the process because of the broad range of issues now included.
Some of the new provisions that are related to energy are: 1) The renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements program, 2) Biomass research and development, 3) The Bio-energy program which makes incentive payments to bio-energy producers, 4) The Biomass energy reserve program, 5) Forest bio-energy research and 6) The Sun grant program which focuses on solar power. All of these programs are designed to meet the mandates of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 through the use of the CCC as a funding mechanism so that the programs do not require line-item funding through the appropriations bill.
Hopefully, we will eventually see a Farm Bill passed that will continue to provide a safety net for our nation’s food supply system. If we are to continue to benefit as a nation from a “cheap” and abundant food supply, we must have a strong farm bill. Let your Congressmen know your feelings.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Ethanol From Switchgrass
Ethanol: Depending upon where you fit in agriculture, ethanol is either a dirty word or the best thing that has come along in years. Livestock producers curse it because of its impact on their cost of feed, but farmers love the extra dollars that it has put into their pockets. Ideally, a way for both segments of agriculture to benefit from ethanol will be found. Perhaps the answer is Switchgrass.
Switchgrass is a perennial grass found in almost every state west of the Rocky Mountains. There are two major classifications of the grass: 1) upland varieties which favor drier, lighter soils and fare better in drier conditions and 2) lowland varieties which thrive in heavier soils and are tolerant of excess moisture such as from flooding.
Switchgrass has been neglected by researchers for many years but now, because of its promise as an energy fuel, they are scrambling all across the nation to collect samples of the various native species so that cultivars can be developed to breed for fuel production. Such efforts are occurring at experiment stations from Texas to the Dakotas and throughout the Midwestern and Southeastern U.S.
Producing ethanol from Switchgrass falls into the category of what is considered cellulosic ethanol. This category is still in the developmental stage but shows great promise of utilizing everything from waste paper pulp to wood chips and grasses. It is a more complex process than producing ethanol from corn, but shows great potential because it can utilize waste, or plant sources grown on marginal land rather than corn which requires premium land and an abundant supply of water as well as intensive use of chemical and fertilizer inputs.
Recent research indicates that corn-based ethanol produces approximately 125% more energy than is required to make it. The potential energy from Switchgrass has been estimated at 540% more than that required to produce it. In addition to the huge energy gain, the amount of inputs required to grow Switchgrass is relatively low and it is a perennial crop.
Switchgrass grows well in regions that receive between 15 and 30 inches of rainfall per year and thrives in a wide variety of soils ranging from fine to coarse in texture. Its roots produce rhizomes that spread beneath the soil surface and will cover approximately the same area below ground that the plant covers above ground. The plants can reach up to 10 feet in height if adequate moisture is available at the right time of year.
In order to produce maximum yields, Switchgrass may require some supplementation of nitrogen. It can be difficult to establish because of low germination rates due to a high percentage of dormancy, but once established, is a perennial producer. Depending on growing conditions, it may produce anywhere from one to three cuttings per year. If a single cutting per year is all that is harvested, the plant has the characteristic that most of the primary nutrients migrate back into the roots in late summer and early fall. If harvest is delayed until after frost, very little of the soil nutrients will be removed with the harvested crop.
As cellulosic ethanol technology develops, Switchgrass will become an important fuel source. Because of its low input requirements, it may hold promise as a significant cash crop for marginal land. The development of new varieties that accommodate the diverse growing conditions across the United States will create opportunities for farmers in many areas. It also appears to hold promise in some areas of the Texas Panhandle – particularly the eastern part of the area where rainfall is generally slightly higher.
Because it typically takes approximately 3 years to establish a harvestable stand of Switchgrass, the decision to produce the crop will require considerable planning. It obviously will not fit into a rotation plan but will fit best on dedicated acres. Over the coming years it is anticipated that some CRP acres may be converted to the crop. Ultimately, the price offered for baled Switchgrass will determine the planted acreage.
Switchgrass is a perennial grass found in almost every state west of the Rocky Mountains. There are two major classifications of the grass: 1) upland varieties which favor drier, lighter soils and fare better in drier conditions and 2) lowland varieties which thrive in heavier soils and are tolerant of excess moisture such as from flooding.
Switchgrass has been neglected by researchers for many years but now, because of its promise as an energy fuel, they are scrambling all across the nation to collect samples of the various native species so that cultivars can be developed to breed for fuel production. Such efforts are occurring at experiment stations from Texas to the Dakotas and throughout the Midwestern and Southeastern U.S.
Producing ethanol from Switchgrass falls into the category of what is considered cellulosic ethanol. This category is still in the developmental stage but shows great promise of utilizing everything from waste paper pulp to wood chips and grasses. It is a more complex process than producing ethanol from corn, but shows great potential because it can utilize waste, or plant sources grown on marginal land rather than corn which requires premium land and an abundant supply of water as well as intensive use of chemical and fertilizer inputs.
Recent research indicates that corn-based ethanol produces approximately 125% more energy than is required to make it. The potential energy from Switchgrass has been estimated at 540% more than that required to produce it. In addition to the huge energy gain, the amount of inputs required to grow Switchgrass is relatively low and it is a perennial crop.
Switchgrass grows well in regions that receive between 15 and 30 inches of rainfall per year and thrives in a wide variety of soils ranging from fine to coarse in texture. Its roots produce rhizomes that spread beneath the soil surface and will cover approximately the same area below ground that the plant covers above ground. The plants can reach up to 10 feet in height if adequate moisture is available at the right time of year.
In order to produce maximum yields, Switchgrass may require some supplementation of nitrogen. It can be difficult to establish because of low germination rates due to a high percentage of dormancy, but once established, is a perennial producer. Depending on growing conditions, it may produce anywhere from one to three cuttings per year. If a single cutting per year is all that is harvested, the plant has the characteristic that most of the primary nutrients migrate back into the roots in late summer and early fall. If harvest is delayed until after frost, very little of the soil nutrients will be removed with the harvested crop.
As cellulosic ethanol technology develops, Switchgrass will become an important fuel source. Because of its low input requirements, it may hold promise as a significant cash crop for marginal land. The development of new varieties that accommodate the diverse growing conditions across the United States will create opportunities for farmers in many areas. It also appears to hold promise in some areas of the Texas Panhandle – particularly the eastern part of the area where rainfall is generally slightly higher.
Because it typically takes approximately 3 years to establish a harvestable stand of Switchgrass, the decision to produce the crop will require considerable planning. It obviously will not fit into a rotation plan but will fit best on dedicated acres. Over the coming years it is anticipated that some CRP acres may be converted to the crop. Ultimately, the price offered for baled Switchgrass will determine the planted acreage.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Marketing Decisions for Agriculture
There are many things that drive marketing decisions in agriculture. Deciding when and where to sell our produce can be determined by the banker, the CPA, by the mere fact that the crop is harvested – or ready as in the case of livestock, or by habit.
Through the years a number of tools have become available to aid in reducing some of the risk associated with marketing our agricultural produce. There is forward contracting, hedging on the futures market and options contracts for example. Each of these tools is designed to give the producer a level of comfort on what the price will be for their products when they have reached a marketable stage.
It seems though, that many farmers and ranchers thrive on risk. It’s probably part of the same mentality that causes them to risk everything each year to plant a crop, or buy cattle, that are subject to the weather, disease, pests, and the market. In fact it has been said that farmers and ranchers aren’t interested in going to Lost Wages – I mean Las Vegas – because the thrill just isn’t there. The stakes are too low.
While the futures market is designed to reduce risk, it can also be a temptation to believe that one knows more about the direction prices are heading than other people do. Therefore, what was designed as a tool to offset risk becomes a method of increasing risk through speculation on the direction that the market may be heading. This is something that most people should avoid because the collective wisdom of the marketplace usually outguesses the individual. In other words, the “big guns” on Wall Street are making their money off of somebody and it is usually the guy that thinks he knows more than they do.
So, what I’m trying to say is that the commodity futures markets are designed to be a tool to mitigate market risk if used properly, but can be extremely hazardous to an individual’s economic health if used improperly. Actually, most farmers and ranchers have a wisdom about the markets that is part of what makes them successful. The rest of us should probably listen to them when it comes to our ventures into the stock market.
Stock Market Wisdom
Making sense of the stock market
Is a challenge to most of us.
It seems the boys on Wall Street
Are constantly stirring up a fuss
Whenever they want to see a stock move.
The sad thing is we are all looking for a win
So we put our money down
Although our chance is thin.
And we listen to the mavens
From the big stock brokerage firms
Tell us where to put our dollars
That we've worked so hard to earn.
Just like a flock of sheep
We go rushing where they say
Hoping we will make a killing
On the stock market today.
But Wall Street just keeps laughing
As we put our savings down
'Cause they went short as we went long
And the profit went to town.
I wish I'd listened to the rancher
Whose wisdom now makes sense;
Keep your money in the bank
And your stock behind a fence.
Through the years a number of tools have become available to aid in reducing some of the risk associated with marketing our agricultural produce. There is forward contracting, hedging on the futures market and options contracts for example. Each of these tools is designed to give the producer a level of comfort on what the price will be for their products when they have reached a marketable stage.
It seems though, that many farmers and ranchers thrive on risk. It’s probably part of the same mentality that causes them to risk everything each year to plant a crop, or buy cattle, that are subject to the weather, disease, pests, and the market. In fact it has been said that farmers and ranchers aren’t interested in going to Lost Wages – I mean Las Vegas – because the thrill just isn’t there. The stakes are too low.
While the futures market is designed to reduce risk, it can also be a temptation to believe that one knows more about the direction prices are heading than other people do. Therefore, what was designed as a tool to offset risk becomes a method of increasing risk through speculation on the direction that the market may be heading. This is something that most people should avoid because the collective wisdom of the marketplace usually outguesses the individual. In other words, the “big guns” on Wall Street are making their money off of somebody and it is usually the guy that thinks he knows more than they do.
So, what I’m trying to say is that the commodity futures markets are designed to be a tool to mitigate market risk if used properly, but can be extremely hazardous to an individual’s economic health if used improperly. Actually, most farmers and ranchers have a wisdom about the markets that is part of what makes them successful. The rest of us should probably listen to them when it comes to our ventures into the stock market.
Stock Market Wisdom
Making sense of the stock market
Is a challenge to most of us.
It seems the boys on Wall Street
Are constantly stirring up a fuss
Whenever they want to see a stock move.
The sad thing is we are all looking for a win
So we put our money down
Although our chance is thin.
And we listen to the mavens
From the big stock brokerage firms
Tell us where to put our dollars
That we've worked so hard to earn.
Just like a flock of sheep
We go rushing where they say
Hoping we will make a killing
On the stock market today.
But Wall Street just keeps laughing
As we put our savings down
'Cause they went short as we went long
And the profit went to town.
I wish I'd listened to the rancher
Whose wisdom now makes sense;
Keep your money in the bank
And your stock behind a fence.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Water Trees in Winter
Most of us don’t think about the fact that trees need water during the winter. They drop their leaves and go into an apparent dormant state, so we tend to forget about them. What we don’t realize is that beneath the ground there is still plenty of activity going on. The roots continue to grow throughout the winter and need adequate water to survive.
There are few outward signs of drought stress on deciduous trees during the winter. During months when they have leaves, drought is noticeable because of leaf yellowing, wilting, curling at edges, brown tips, and dropping leaves. During the winter though, there are no leaves to act as drought indicators. Evergreens on the other hand, may turn yellow, red or purple. They also may turn brown at the tips of the needles and the browning may progress through the needle towards the twig.
Often times, drought stress may not kill a tree outright but it will set it up for more serious secondary disease and insect infestations in following years. To insure a good growing season, care must be taken to supplement the water needs of the trees throughout the year.
Trees should be watered to a depth of about twelve inches below the soil surface. The soil should be saturated within the drip line which is the area out to the outer edges of the trees branches. This will ensure that water is dispersed to all of the roots. On evergreens, water should be distributed 3 to 5 feet beyond the drip line on all sides of the tree.
Trees should be watered slowly to make certain that it penetrates to an adequate depth. Watering quickly often does not allow for penetration to sufficient depth. Shallow watering means a shallow root system. Trees will be better drought tolerant and resist wind better with a deep root system.
It is not recommended that you dig holes near the tree in order to get deeper water penetration. The holes allow more air to reach the roots and thus dry the soil more quickly. Use a soil needle or deep root feeder to apply water at a depth. Overhead spraying of trees is an inefficient way to apply water. Watering at ground level is a much more efficient application method.
As a general rule of thumb, trees need approximately 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter for each watering. They will need this much water 3 – 4 times per month during April through September and 1 – 2 times per month from October through March. Newly planted trees may need even more water. Soil types and conditions as well as temperature and humidity affect the requirements.
Different species of trees have different water requirements. Drought hardy trees require much less water than species that are native to areas with high rainfall. Consult a qualified nurseryman or your local soil and water conservationist for guidelines on specific trees. The National Arbor Day Foundation also is an excellent resource for guidelines on tree care and management.
Use of mulch is recommended as a water conservation tool for trees. Wood chips, shredded bark, leaves, or evergreen needles make good mulch. They should be piled to a depth of about four inches. Mulch should be pulled away from the tree trunk for a distance of about 6 inches.
Do not fertilize trees during times when they are drought stressed. Fertilizers contain salts that may burn the roots of your trees if there is inadequate water to dilute it. The damage from the fertilizer may actually slow the trees growth rather than stimulate it as expected. Only fertilize during periods when adequate water is available.
Winter is a great time to get your trees off to a healthy start for the next year’s growing season. Adequate water is the foundation of that healthy start.
There are few outward signs of drought stress on deciduous trees during the winter. During months when they have leaves, drought is noticeable because of leaf yellowing, wilting, curling at edges, brown tips, and dropping leaves. During the winter though, there are no leaves to act as drought indicators. Evergreens on the other hand, may turn yellow, red or purple. They also may turn brown at the tips of the needles and the browning may progress through the needle towards the twig.
Often times, drought stress may not kill a tree outright but it will set it up for more serious secondary disease and insect infestations in following years. To insure a good growing season, care must be taken to supplement the water needs of the trees throughout the year.
Trees should be watered to a depth of about twelve inches below the soil surface. The soil should be saturated within the drip line which is the area out to the outer edges of the trees branches. This will ensure that water is dispersed to all of the roots. On evergreens, water should be distributed 3 to 5 feet beyond the drip line on all sides of the tree.
Trees should be watered slowly to make certain that it penetrates to an adequate depth. Watering quickly often does not allow for penetration to sufficient depth. Shallow watering means a shallow root system. Trees will be better drought tolerant and resist wind better with a deep root system.
It is not recommended that you dig holes near the tree in order to get deeper water penetration. The holes allow more air to reach the roots and thus dry the soil more quickly. Use a soil needle or deep root feeder to apply water at a depth. Overhead spraying of trees is an inefficient way to apply water. Watering at ground level is a much more efficient application method.
As a general rule of thumb, trees need approximately 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter for each watering. They will need this much water 3 – 4 times per month during April through September and 1 – 2 times per month from October through March. Newly planted trees may need even more water. Soil types and conditions as well as temperature and humidity affect the requirements.
Different species of trees have different water requirements. Drought hardy trees require much less water than species that are native to areas with high rainfall. Consult a qualified nurseryman or your local soil and water conservationist for guidelines on specific trees. The National Arbor Day Foundation also is an excellent resource for guidelines on tree care and management.
Use of mulch is recommended as a water conservation tool for trees. Wood chips, shredded bark, leaves, or evergreen needles make good mulch. They should be piled to a depth of about four inches. Mulch should be pulled away from the tree trunk for a distance of about 6 inches.
Do not fertilize trees during times when they are drought stressed. Fertilizers contain salts that may burn the roots of your trees if there is inadequate water to dilute it. The damage from the fertilizer may actually slow the trees growth rather than stimulate it as expected. Only fertilize during periods when adequate water is available.
Winter is a great time to get your trees off to a healthy start for the next year’s growing season. Adequate water is the foundation of that healthy start.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
A Look Back And A Look Forward
The big news in agriculture for 2007 was the “tsunami” impact of ethanol. It affected everything from planting decisions to fuel prices to the cost of feeding livestock to food prices in the supermarket. It shook commodity markets from China to the United States – and so far, we’ve only seen the leading edge.
What will we see in 2008? I think we will see farmers continuing to shift acreage toward corn. It will be increasingly difficult to hold CRP acreage in the program and many contracts will not be renewed. The competition for corn will continue to create problems for the livestock feeding industry. The demand for bio-fuel crops will affect reserve stocks and planted acreages of all grain crops.
The high cost of feeding cattle is affecting the timing of when those cattle come to the feed lots and therefore to the packer. Where possible, the calf crop will be held on grass to put as much gain on them as is practical before shifting them to the higher cost finishing rations. Wheat pasture will be scarce again. World wheat supplies are low and the competition for acres is high. High wheat prices will mean that fewer acres are available for grazing.
There will likely be a greater regional disparity in cattle prices. This price disparity will be a function of availability of grazing, proximity to feedlots with ethanol co-products to feed, and transportation costs. Such things have always affected cattle prices, but the ethanol co-products is a fairly new factor and transportation prices are an even bigger factor than they have been historically.
Whether you believe that “global warming” is caused by human activity or by natural cyclical phenomena doesn’t matter, weather patterns seem to be shifting. Drought, flood, hurricanes and other weather-related factors will likely be in the headlines on a more frequent basis. Weather is always a factor in agricultural production. If indeed the weather patterns are shifting, the impact to agriculture could be devastating in some areas and beneficial in others.
Related to weather is water. Water will become the number one global issue in the coming years. Drought affects water availability. In the Southeast and on the West Coast, 2007 has been a year for drought. The snowpack in the Rockies is low which means less water in the rivers and streams that feed many reservoirs. In the irrigated areas of the country such as the High Plains, corn production, the influx of dairies, ethanol plants and growing population centers will put increasing pressure on the Ogallala Aquifer, further depleting our underground water resource. Add to that the increasing demand of population centers such as Dallas for new water supplies and the initiative of some individuals and groups to supply that demand from the Ogallala and you have even greater pressure on water for irrigation.
The growing world population – especially in China and India – will further impact the world agriculture situation. Not only are the populations of those countries growing, but their economies are growing even more quickly. It will mean more dollars available for expenditure by the people of those countries. Some of that money will be spent on higher quality foods such as protein rather than rice. The growing economies will also increase demand for fuel which will place further pressure on global fuel prices. Fuel prices impact ethanol which impacts U.S. agriculture. Hopefully, it will also favorably impact our agriculture export markets.
It is certain that 2008 will be a year of excitement and turmoil for agriculture. We must respond to a changing role in the world economy. Continuing to do business the same way we have historically is a sure formula for failure. Agriculture is quickly moving to the center of focus for the world. We must respond as the leaders that we are and prepare for that new role.
What will we see in 2008? I think we will see farmers continuing to shift acreage toward corn. It will be increasingly difficult to hold CRP acreage in the program and many contracts will not be renewed. The competition for corn will continue to create problems for the livestock feeding industry. The demand for bio-fuel crops will affect reserve stocks and planted acreages of all grain crops.
The high cost of feeding cattle is affecting the timing of when those cattle come to the feed lots and therefore to the packer. Where possible, the calf crop will be held on grass to put as much gain on them as is practical before shifting them to the higher cost finishing rations. Wheat pasture will be scarce again. World wheat supplies are low and the competition for acres is high. High wheat prices will mean that fewer acres are available for grazing.
There will likely be a greater regional disparity in cattle prices. This price disparity will be a function of availability of grazing, proximity to feedlots with ethanol co-products to feed, and transportation costs. Such things have always affected cattle prices, but the ethanol co-products is a fairly new factor and transportation prices are an even bigger factor than they have been historically.
Whether you believe that “global warming” is caused by human activity or by natural cyclical phenomena doesn’t matter, weather patterns seem to be shifting. Drought, flood, hurricanes and other weather-related factors will likely be in the headlines on a more frequent basis. Weather is always a factor in agricultural production. If indeed the weather patterns are shifting, the impact to agriculture could be devastating in some areas and beneficial in others.
Related to weather is water. Water will become the number one global issue in the coming years. Drought affects water availability. In the Southeast and on the West Coast, 2007 has been a year for drought. The snowpack in the Rockies is low which means less water in the rivers and streams that feed many reservoirs. In the irrigated areas of the country such as the High Plains, corn production, the influx of dairies, ethanol plants and growing population centers will put increasing pressure on the Ogallala Aquifer, further depleting our underground water resource. Add to that the increasing demand of population centers such as Dallas for new water supplies and the initiative of some individuals and groups to supply that demand from the Ogallala and you have even greater pressure on water for irrigation.
The growing world population – especially in China and India – will further impact the world agriculture situation. Not only are the populations of those countries growing, but their economies are growing even more quickly. It will mean more dollars available for expenditure by the people of those countries. Some of that money will be spent on higher quality foods such as protein rather than rice. The growing economies will also increase demand for fuel which will place further pressure on global fuel prices. Fuel prices impact ethanol which impacts U.S. agriculture. Hopefully, it will also favorably impact our agriculture export markets.
It is certain that 2008 will be a year of excitement and turmoil for agriculture. We must respond to a changing role in the world economy. Continuing to do business the same way we have historically is a sure formula for failure. Agriculture is quickly moving to the center of focus for the world. We must respond as the leaders that we are and prepare for that new role.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Christmas Trees for the Panhandle
I’ve always been fascinated with Christmas trees. I prefer a fresh cut tree rather than an artificial one, but because of allergies, it is artificial at our house. To be able to go out and cut a tree in the woods and bring it home for Christmas is something that would be a wonderful family outing. In the plains of West Texas it is something that is highly unlikely.
My fascination with Christmas trees has led to an interest in Christmas tree farming. It is not something that you typically see in the Texas Panhandle, but there are tree farms even in this part of the world. Large-scale farms in our area are unlikely because of the necessary expense of irrigating the trees and the low-density population base within a short distance. The trees would need to be transported to large population centers for sale. We have a decided economic disadvantage to areas of the country with higher levels of precipitation.
I do believe that small-scale tree farms geared to individuals who want the experience of cutting their own tree could be profitable. They would need to be located within a short driving distance of the larger cities in the area. It also would be desirable to enhance the experience by providing hay rides or special events during the tree cutting season prior to Christmas.
Many species of pine that make beautiful Christmas trees grow well in our area. Both Afghan and Austrian pines can be sheared and tipped to provide the classic shape most desired by those who prefer a fresh-cut tree. They do require significant amounts of water in order to grow fairly quickly.
When provided with sufficient water and proper soil nutrients, a 2-year old seedling can reach heights of 5 to 6 feet within a 4 to 5 year period. This means that there would be significant capital investment as well as time and labor before a sellable crop could be available. With careful planning, a portion of the available acreage could be planted each year so that by the end of the third or fourth year, a few trees would be of sufficient size to cut. As trees are harvested, new seedlings could be planted in their place so that a sustainable number of trees eventually would become available each year.
Trees should be planted at a spacing that fits the equipment available for maintaining the farm. It is necessary to keep spaces between trees mowed and also to be able to access the trees for spraying insecticides when necessary. Generally a minimum spacing of 6 foot centers is required if equipment is fairly small. Wider spacing of up to 8 foot may be necessary with larger equipment. With 8 foot centers, approximately 680 trees can be grown per acre of land.
Planting of the trees is typically done by hand on smaller tracts. A mattock or tree planting spade is usually used to plant the seedlings which are about eight to ten inches tall at two years of age. Care must be taken to make certain the roots are placed straight in the ground rather than curved at the bottom of the hole. Good straight roots are necessary to provide stability as the tree grows – especially when faced with windy conditions.
The trees are not labor intensive once they become established, however they do require attention on a daily business throughout the growing season. As the trees grow, it is necessary to monitor them continually for insect infestation and for disease. They also will need to be sheared in July or August and the terminal leader will need to be tipped. The shearing and tipping will cause the trees to branch, which creates thicker foliage. It also helps to create the desired shape. Many growers will cut back up to 1/3 of the annual growth each year.
Although not likely to become a large part of our local agricultural economy, small-scale tree farms could be a good fit to many operations as a way to diversify income. Diverting a few acres to such an enterprise might work well in marginal areas that do not fit with typical cropping or livestock operations.
My fascination with Christmas trees has led to an interest in Christmas tree farming. It is not something that you typically see in the Texas Panhandle, but there are tree farms even in this part of the world. Large-scale farms in our area are unlikely because of the necessary expense of irrigating the trees and the low-density population base within a short distance. The trees would need to be transported to large population centers for sale. We have a decided economic disadvantage to areas of the country with higher levels of precipitation.
I do believe that small-scale tree farms geared to individuals who want the experience of cutting their own tree could be profitable. They would need to be located within a short driving distance of the larger cities in the area. It also would be desirable to enhance the experience by providing hay rides or special events during the tree cutting season prior to Christmas.
Many species of pine that make beautiful Christmas trees grow well in our area. Both Afghan and Austrian pines can be sheared and tipped to provide the classic shape most desired by those who prefer a fresh-cut tree. They do require significant amounts of water in order to grow fairly quickly.
When provided with sufficient water and proper soil nutrients, a 2-year old seedling can reach heights of 5 to 6 feet within a 4 to 5 year period. This means that there would be significant capital investment as well as time and labor before a sellable crop could be available. With careful planning, a portion of the available acreage could be planted each year so that by the end of the third or fourth year, a few trees would be of sufficient size to cut. As trees are harvested, new seedlings could be planted in their place so that a sustainable number of trees eventually would become available each year.
Trees should be planted at a spacing that fits the equipment available for maintaining the farm. It is necessary to keep spaces between trees mowed and also to be able to access the trees for spraying insecticides when necessary. Generally a minimum spacing of 6 foot centers is required if equipment is fairly small. Wider spacing of up to 8 foot may be necessary with larger equipment. With 8 foot centers, approximately 680 trees can be grown per acre of land.
Planting of the trees is typically done by hand on smaller tracts. A mattock or tree planting spade is usually used to plant the seedlings which are about eight to ten inches tall at two years of age. Care must be taken to make certain the roots are placed straight in the ground rather than curved at the bottom of the hole. Good straight roots are necessary to provide stability as the tree grows – especially when faced with windy conditions.
The trees are not labor intensive once they become established, however they do require attention on a daily business throughout the growing season. As the trees grow, it is necessary to monitor them continually for insect infestation and for disease. They also will need to be sheared in July or August and the terminal leader will need to be tipped. The shearing and tipping will cause the trees to branch, which creates thicker foliage. It also helps to create the desired shape. Many growers will cut back up to 1/3 of the annual growth each year.
Although not likely to become a large part of our local agricultural economy, small-scale tree farms could be a good fit to many operations as a way to diversify income. Diverting a few acres to such an enterprise might work well in marginal areas that do not fit with typical cropping or livestock operations.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Hypothermia in Cattle
When we see cattle grazing lush wheat pastures in the fall and winter months, we typically don’t think about the effects of cold or wet weather on those cattle. They usually have a nice thick coat of hair that protects them from the elements. What we often fail to realize is that certain weather conditions or other factors can mean that luxuriant coat is inadequate to keep the animals from suffering hypothermia.
Hypothermia is defined as the lowering of body core temperature below normal values. A cow typically will have an internal body temperature as measured rectally of approximately 101° F. Mild hypothermia occurs when the body temperature is in the range of 86°-89° F. Moderate hypothermia occurs at 71°-85° and profound hypothermia under 50°. At a rectal temperature below 82° the bovine can no longer return to normal temperature without external heat and warmed fluid therapy.
The environmental temperature at which a cow will begin to experience hypothermia varies with length of hair coat, wind speed, moisture and body condition. When hypothermia occurs, the animal’s internal processes begin to slow. Blood is shunted away from the extremities in an effort to protect vital organs and frostbite of the teats and ear tips will occur. As the body temperature continues to lower, respiration and heart rate slow and blood pressure drops. Eventually the animal will lose consciousness and death will occur.
One of the worst conditions for cattle to endure is temperatures hovering slightly above freezing with a cold rain falling. The rain often soaks through the hair coat to the skin and begins to draw heat from the animal’s body. If this condition is accompanied by strong winds, the chilling effect is increased and the animal may suffer hypothermia in a very short period of time. Any time the forecast calls for wet, rainy, windy conditions, steps should be taken to provide at least some form of break from the wind. This can be accomplished by lining round bales of hay or attaching plywood to portable fence panels if better shelter is unavailable.
Light-weight cattle shipped from warmer areas often have a shorter hair coat than native or northern cattle. They also will typically have little if any fat that would act as an insulating factor in inclement weather. These light-weight stockers also may be undergoing the stress of disease exposure, long shipping distances, recent weaning, or other factors that challenge the body and require energy to overcome. When extreme cold stress is added to those factors, they become at high-risk for hypothermia.
Newborn calves also are at high risk for hypothermia. They are born with a wet hair coat which is often fairly short. If they are born in cold or wet conditions, care should be taken to provide shelter for them. Many calves born under extreme conditions lose body heat quickly and never gain enough strength to stand and nurse. If cows are calving during extreme conditions, they should be monitored closely or moved to shelter prior to calving. Preparation should be made to have warming blankets, heat lamps and clean, dry bedding in a sheltered place available to warm hypothermic calves should they be born in such conditions.
Prolonged wet, cold conditions will take a toll on all types of cattle. The body must fight to maintain sufficient core temperature to sustain itself during such conditions. It is critical that adequate feed and drinkable water be supplied. Typically feed intake will be elevated prior to onset of a storm and then somewhat depressed during the inclement weather. This suppressed appetite means that the quality of available feed must be high in order for the animal to get the greatest amount of nutrition possible during such conditions.
To minimize death loss in cattle due to hypothermia, shelter from rain and wind, adequate high-quality feed, and sufficient drinkable water are critical. If cattle become hypothermic, steps may be necessary to raise their core body temperature through therapy such as warmed fluids and moving the animal to a heated shelter. The best plan is to make preparations prior to such conditions rather than providing emergency treatment afterwards. Always seek the advice of a qualified veterinarian on any questions of animal health.
Hypothermia is defined as the lowering of body core temperature below normal values. A cow typically will have an internal body temperature as measured rectally of approximately 101° F. Mild hypothermia occurs when the body temperature is in the range of 86°-89° F. Moderate hypothermia occurs at 71°-85° and profound hypothermia under 50°. At a rectal temperature below 82° the bovine can no longer return to normal temperature without external heat and warmed fluid therapy.
The environmental temperature at which a cow will begin to experience hypothermia varies with length of hair coat, wind speed, moisture and body condition. When hypothermia occurs, the animal’s internal processes begin to slow. Blood is shunted away from the extremities in an effort to protect vital organs and frostbite of the teats and ear tips will occur. As the body temperature continues to lower, respiration and heart rate slow and blood pressure drops. Eventually the animal will lose consciousness and death will occur.
One of the worst conditions for cattle to endure is temperatures hovering slightly above freezing with a cold rain falling. The rain often soaks through the hair coat to the skin and begins to draw heat from the animal’s body. If this condition is accompanied by strong winds, the chilling effect is increased and the animal may suffer hypothermia in a very short period of time. Any time the forecast calls for wet, rainy, windy conditions, steps should be taken to provide at least some form of break from the wind. This can be accomplished by lining round bales of hay or attaching plywood to portable fence panels if better shelter is unavailable.
Light-weight cattle shipped from warmer areas often have a shorter hair coat than native or northern cattle. They also will typically have little if any fat that would act as an insulating factor in inclement weather. These light-weight stockers also may be undergoing the stress of disease exposure, long shipping distances, recent weaning, or other factors that challenge the body and require energy to overcome. When extreme cold stress is added to those factors, they become at high-risk for hypothermia.
Newborn calves also are at high risk for hypothermia. They are born with a wet hair coat which is often fairly short. If they are born in cold or wet conditions, care should be taken to provide shelter for them. Many calves born under extreme conditions lose body heat quickly and never gain enough strength to stand and nurse. If cows are calving during extreme conditions, they should be monitored closely or moved to shelter prior to calving. Preparation should be made to have warming blankets, heat lamps and clean, dry bedding in a sheltered place available to warm hypothermic calves should they be born in such conditions.
Prolonged wet, cold conditions will take a toll on all types of cattle. The body must fight to maintain sufficient core temperature to sustain itself during such conditions. It is critical that adequate feed and drinkable water be supplied. Typically feed intake will be elevated prior to onset of a storm and then somewhat depressed during the inclement weather. This suppressed appetite means that the quality of available feed must be high in order for the animal to get the greatest amount of nutrition possible during such conditions.
To minimize death loss in cattle due to hypothermia, shelter from rain and wind, adequate high-quality feed, and sufficient drinkable water are critical. If cattle become hypothermic, steps may be necessary to raise their core body temperature through therapy such as warmed fluids and moving the animal to a heated shelter. The best plan is to make preparations prior to such conditions rather than providing emergency treatment afterwards. Always seek the advice of a qualified veterinarian on any questions of animal health.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Prescribed Burning for Rangeland
Extremely low humidity, dry conditions and an abundance of grass from excellent summer rains have created conditions of high fire risk in our area. Besides the risk to property and to life, wildfires can potentially damage pastures.
Fire was one of the principal forces that formed and maintained the Great Plains grasslands. Before European settlement of the plains, fires were generally set by lightening or by Indians. Unchecked, the fires typically burned extensive acreages before encountering natural barriers such as streams or green vegetation. Such fires helped to suppress the growth of woody plants and cacti.
In the 1960’s range managers began to examine the use of fire as a tool for manipulating plant communities. They saw prescribed burning as a way to rid pastures of invasive species and as a way to rejuvenate grasslands that had become overburdened with old growth. In studying the use of fire as a management tool, it was found that the timing of the fires was critical in achieving the desired results. Burning at the wrong time of year can in fact damage beneficial species, exacerbate erosion by wind and water, and create opportunities for invasive species to enter.
Prescribed burning has gained credence as a management tool for pastureland in recent years. It has been used extensively in the Flint Hills of Kansas since the 1880’s when it was found that steer weight gains increased on burned areas. It was not until recently however that the reasons for the increased gains were understood. Removing the old-growth overburden allowed tender new shoots to become readily available to the grazing cattle. These new shoots were both higher in nutritive value and more palatable. Other benefits included increased grass yield and suppression of woody species.
In short-grass species such as blue grama, black grama, and buffalograss that are common to our area, there is typically little benefit to burning. Such grasses do not form the heavy overburden of dried stems that are common in mid-height and tall grasses. In short-grass pastures, burning can be used to control invasive weeds such as kochia and Russian thistle. Timing of such burning is critical. Due to the typical low humidity, dry soil conditions and wind, burning at the wrong time may cause heavy erosion and general degradation of the pasture.
It has been found that prescribed burns should be conducted on entire pastures rather than spot-burning. This is because the new growth in burned areas attracts cattle and is typically overgrazed while unburned areas are underutilized. The result is damage to the grasses in the burned areas and establishment of invasive species in unburned areas. This brings us back to fire damage to pastures.
Many of the grass fires during the winter months are due to careless burning of trash or from cigarettes thrown out the windows of vehicles. They typically are suppressed before burning large areas. This results in a “patchy” burn across pasture. When the new spring growth occurs, these burned areas are typically the first areas in which the new grasses are visible and available for grazing. The shoots are tender and free of dried stems from the previous season. Cattle gravitate to such areas in the pasture and not only keep the grass cropped extremely short, their hooves damage the new shoots and destroy many plants. This causes bare areas in which invasive weed species may become established.
The best way to manage such problems is to prevent them from happening. It is a good idea to keep roadside areas free of heavy growth during seasons of high fire risk. Reducing the available fuel supply can prevent wildfires from occurring because there is no fuel to sustain them. If however, you experience accidental fire damage to your pasture, consider a controlled burn in the spring to reduce the potential damage from overgrazing of the spot-burn. Burning the entire pasture can rejuvenate the grasses, reduce many unwanted species and stimulate new growth. If you have burned areas, or use prescribed burning, make certain that you hold off grazing until sufficient growth has occurred to prevent damage by the cattle.
Prescribed burning is an excellent management tool when used properly. Wildfire is not. Prevent range fires by taking steps to reduce your risk.
Fire was one of the principal forces that formed and maintained the Great Plains grasslands. Before European settlement of the plains, fires were generally set by lightening or by Indians. Unchecked, the fires typically burned extensive acreages before encountering natural barriers such as streams or green vegetation. Such fires helped to suppress the growth of woody plants and cacti.
In the 1960’s range managers began to examine the use of fire as a tool for manipulating plant communities. They saw prescribed burning as a way to rid pastures of invasive species and as a way to rejuvenate grasslands that had become overburdened with old growth. In studying the use of fire as a management tool, it was found that the timing of the fires was critical in achieving the desired results. Burning at the wrong time of year can in fact damage beneficial species, exacerbate erosion by wind and water, and create opportunities for invasive species to enter.
Prescribed burning has gained credence as a management tool for pastureland in recent years. It has been used extensively in the Flint Hills of Kansas since the 1880’s when it was found that steer weight gains increased on burned areas. It was not until recently however that the reasons for the increased gains were understood. Removing the old-growth overburden allowed tender new shoots to become readily available to the grazing cattle. These new shoots were both higher in nutritive value and more palatable. Other benefits included increased grass yield and suppression of woody species.
In short-grass species such as blue grama, black grama, and buffalograss that are common to our area, there is typically little benefit to burning. Such grasses do not form the heavy overburden of dried stems that are common in mid-height and tall grasses. In short-grass pastures, burning can be used to control invasive weeds such as kochia and Russian thistle. Timing of such burning is critical. Due to the typical low humidity, dry soil conditions and wind, burning at the wrong time may cause heavy erosion and general degradation of the pasture.
It has been found that prescribed burns should be conducted on entire pastures rather than spot-burning. This is because the new growth in burned areas attracts cattle and is typically overgrazed while unburned areas are underutilized. The result is damage to the grasses in the burned areas and establishment of invasive species in unburned areas. This brings us back to fire damage to pastures.
Many of the grass fires during the winter months are due to careless burning of trash or from cigarettes thrown out the windows of vehicles. They typically are suppressed before burning large areas. This results in a “patchy” burn across pasture. When the new spring growth occurs, these burned areas are typically the first areas in which the new grasses are visible and available for grazing. The shoots are tender and free of dried stems from the previous season. Cattle gravitate to such areas in the pasture and not only keep the grass cropped extremely short, their hooves damage the new shoots and destroy many plants. This causes bare areas in which invasive weed species may become established.
The best way to manage such problems is to prevent them from happening. It is a good idea to keep roadside areas free of heavy growth during seasons of high fire risk. Reducing the available fuel supply can prevent wildfires from occurring because there is no fuel to sustain them. If however, you experience accidental fire damage to your pasture, consider a controlled burn in the spring to reduce the potential damage from overgrazing of the spot-burn. Burning the entire pasture can rejuvenate the grasses, reduce many unwanted species and stimulate new growth. If you have burned areas, or use prescribed burning, make certain that you hold off grazing until sufficient growth has occurred to prevent damage by the cattle.
Prescribed burning is an excellent management tool when used properly. Wildfire is not. Prevent range fires by taking steps to reduce your risk.
Friday, November 16, 2007
More Thoughts on Ethanol
I had the privilege last week of hearing a number of speakers address some of the issues concerning ethanol and its impact on the beef industry. Much of what I heard was technical in nature – specifically related to the impact of ethanol co-products on cattle nutrition. However, there was much that was general in nature. The thoughts below are capsules of some of that information after it has been distilled through my own thinking.
Ethanol is an explosion into agriculture that is in the process of creating some of the most dramatic change since World War II. It has created a level of fear and uncertainty at all levels of production as well as in industries dependent upon agriculture.
Ethanol is here to stay. There will likely be restructuring as the industry moves beyond its infancy into a more mature phase. Because they are stainless steel, most new plants have an estimated 85 year life expectancy. Even if the current owner of the plant goes out of business, it will be bought for cents on the dollar and kept in production.
Today, logistical issues are the most important factor slowing its growth. Ethanol plants are not hooked into the national pipeline system. Although most plants are located on rail lines, their product must be shipped to blenders that sometimes are not. Therefore, trucking to blending locations from rail terminals can be an issue.
The large expected corn crop this year is great news for the new plants coming on line. What happens when we have a drought in the Midwest? It has happened before. New corn genetics have mitigated the potential impact, however, high and volatile corn prices will likely be the norm for many years.
We should expect to see wide variation in the cost of feeding cattle between different regions of the country. Those lots near concentrations of corn and ethanol plants will have an advantage on cost of feed over those feedlots at a distance from corn growing areas. Although ethanol plants are locating near existing feedlots, they will be importing corn. High transportation costs associated with high fuel prices will place areas like the High Plains of Texas at a disadvantage. Feedlots near heavy concentrations of ethanol plants will be able to substitute ethanol co-products for a high percentage of their ration. This will offset to a large extent, the competition for corn. Many will be able to remove corn from their ration altogether and feed rations consisting primarily of distiller’s grains and ground straw or corn stalks.
The cost of feeding variations coupled with high transportation costs will create large price disparities in feeder cattle on a regional basis. We are already seeing large variations in the price of feeder calves between South Texas and the Nebraska Sandhills that is not strictly a function of quality. It is a function of fuel prices, corn prices, and the availability of ethanol co-products. This regional price disparity will continue to be an issue.
With wheat prices remaining above $8 for the foreseeable future, wheat pasture will be at a premium if available at all. This will further erode the market for beef calves located at great distance from the lower-cost feeding areas such as Nebraska and Iowa. Competition for pasture will increase nationally.
The next few years will see the beef industry – and in particular, the cattle feeding industry – struggling to find a point of equilibrium in the marketplace. Those who are able to adapt and capitalize on the turmoil will succeed. Those who do not make the adjustment will fail. What we have known is in the process of being destroyed by this new behemoth of ethanol. Out of the chaos that it is creating will rise a new and stronger industry as it is re-created in an image that reflects the changes of the new renewable energy economy.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Hunting Season Thoughts
Fall is the time of year when many of us think of hunting. It starts off with dove season then quickly moves to quail, deer and pheasant. You can’t leave out turkey, ducks, geese, wild pigs, elk, and on and on – especially for the true enthusiasts.
Hunting is big dollars to the economy. It is also the source of a huge portion of the dollars spent for conservation efforts throughout the country each year. According to National Geographic (Nov. 2007), 75% of the revenue to state wildlife agencies comes through hunting and fishing license fees ($1.22 billion in the most recently reported figures) and excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment and motorboat fuels ($616 million).
At the federal level, $24 million was spent on Duck stamps which are required of waterfowl hunters age 16 and older. Another $280 million was contributed during 2006, to organizations devoted to the conservation of game species such as Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, and others.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey of 2001 indicated that the economic impact of waterfowl hunting in the U.S. was in excess of $2.3 billion in that year alone. Texas accounted for approximately $206 million of that impact.
When we look at the opportunities to farmers and ranchers in the Panhandle region for capitalizing on such expenditures, we need to look beyond our Conservation Reserve Program acreage to our playa lakes. Playas offer a unique opportunity to provide oases of habitat for wildlife. Because of the seasonal nature of their water levels, many farmers have seen them as additional, although unreliable, crop acres. Perhaps it would be better to view them as wildlife revenue opportunities.
Restoration of playa lake environments to their natural flora will increase opportunities for hunting. During the seasonal waterfowl migrations, playas often offer the only available water source for “safe harbor” to ducks and geese passing through the area. Given the enthusiastic devotion of most waterfowl hunters, lease revenue for waterfowl hunting could generate significant income.
In addition to waterfowl, the water contained in playas is a source of sustenance for other types of wildlife. Dove, pheasant and quail are attracted to the water from nearby grain fields. With the planting of cover and food species of plants, the playa environment offers a reservoir of habitat for many game species. Lease revenue could be expanded to include many different species so that revenue could be generated from dove season which begins in September through the end of quail season which often extends into February.
There is also a growing population of non-hunting wildlife enthusiasts who are willing to pay for viewing experiences. During the non-hunting seasons or even during the fall if access is closely controlled, there is potential revenue from providing viewing opportunities to interested individuals. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 1991, approximately 30% of expenditures on wildlife were on viewing and photography. In that year, the estimated amount spent on viewing and photography was $18.1 billion. The number has increased dramatically since that time. Based on that percentage, the figure for 2006 would be around $36 billion nationally.
When the land owner considers the programs available to help restore wetlands/playa habitat, the incentive for looking at wildlife as a crop increases. The Playa Lakes Joint Venture organization (www.pljv.org) is a great resource for information regarding benefits of playa restoration as well as programs available for financial incentives.
Hunting is not only a great source of revenue to farmers and ranchers, it is a great way for families to participate in healthy outdoor activities. There is a special bond created from shared hunting experiences and it is not just for men and boys anymore. One of the fastest growing segments of the hunting population is women and girls.
Playa restoration is something that every landowner should consider; not only for the economic value, but for the opportunity to strengthen families and to improve our environment as well.
Hunting is big dollars to the economy. It is also the source of a huge portion of the dollars spent for conservation efforts throughout the country each year. According to National Geographic (Nov. 2007), 75% of the revenue to state wildlife agencies comes through hunting and fishing license fees ($1.22 billion in the most recently reported figures) and excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment and motorboat fuels ($616 million).
At the federal level, $24 million was spent on Duck stamps which are required of waterfowl hunters age 16 and older. Another $280 million was contributed during 2006, to organizations devoted to the conservation of game species such as Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, and others.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey of 2001 indicated that the economic impact of waterfowl hunting in the U.S. was in excess of $2.3 billion in that year alone. Texas accounted for approximately $206 million of that impact.
When we look at the opportunities to farmers and ranchers in the Panhandle region for capitalizing on such expenditures, we need to look beyond our Conservation Reserve Program acreage to our playa lakes. Playas offer a unique opportunity to provide oases of habitat for wildlife. Because of the seasonal nature of their water levels, many farmers have seen them as additional, although unreliable, crop acres. Perhaps it would be better to view them as wildlife revenue opportunities.
Restoration of playa lake environments to their natural flora will increase opportunities for hunting. During the seasonal waterfowl migrations, playas often offer the only available water source for “safe harbor” to ducks and geese passing through the area. Given the enthusiastic devotion of most waterfowl hunters, lease revenue for waterfowl hunting could generate significant income.
In addition to waterfowl, the water contained in playas is a source of sustenance for other types of wildlife. Dove, pheasant and quail are attracted to the water from nearby grain fields. With the planting of cover and food species of plants, the playa environment offers a reservoir of habitat for many game species. Lease revenue could be expanded to include many different species so that revenue could be generated from dove season which begins in September through the end of quail season which often extends into February.
There is also a growing population of non-hunting wildlife enthusiasts who are willing to pay for viewing experiences. During the non-hunting seasons or even during the fall if access is closely controlled, there is potential revenue from providing viewing opportunities to interested individuals. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 1991, approximately 30% of expenditures on wildlife were on viewing and photography. In that year, the estimated amount spent on viewing and photography was $18.1 billion. The number has increased dramatically since that time. Based on that percentage, the figure for 2006 would be around $36 billion nationally.
When the land owner considers the programs available to help restore wetlands/playa habitat, the incentive for looking at wildlife as a crop increases. The Playa Lakes Joint Venture organization (www.pljv.org) is a great resource for information regarding benefits of playa restoration as well as programs available for financial incentives.
Hunting is not only a great source of revenue to farmers and ranchers, it is a great way for families to participate in healthy outdoor activities. There is a special bond created from shared hunting experiences and it is not just for men and boys anymore. One of the fastest growing segments of the hunting population is women and girls.
Playa restoration is something that every landowner should consider; not only for the economic value, but for the opportunity to strengthen families and to improve our environment as well.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Ethanol's Tangled Web
Direct subsidies by the U.S. government to gasoline blenders are $0.51/gallon of ethanol. In 2006, the total of these subsidies was $2.5 billion. Such subsidies are the reason behind the ethanol boom that we are experiencing. In 2006, ethanol production earned our country an approximately 1.5% oil independence. According to the USDA, at the maximum practical production level which is likely to be achieved by 2017, corn ethanol would provide 3.7% oil independence.
Ethanol has been around since the first “moonshiner” discovered how to distill corn into whiskey. It is the same thing as 200 proof whiskey. It was used by Henry Ford to power some of the first Model T’s. Today it is fueling a euphoric corn market that has seen prices soar above $3.50/bushel. It has also sent turmoil through the livestock markets as feeders adjust to the realities of higher commodity prices.
The USDA estimates that ethanol yields about 25% more energy than is required to produce it. Most of the energy gain is in the form of co-products available for feed. If you measure the energy equivalence of the ethanol itself, it takes about as much energy to produce it as it yields. One gallon of ethanol contains about 2/3 of the energy of a gallon of gasoline. This means that if your vehicle achieved 30 mpg with gasoline, it would achieve only 20 mpg burning pure ethanol.
Ethanol co-products make excellent cattle feed for inclusion in feedlot rations. Some studies indicate that Wet Distiller’s Grains contain 100-112% of the value of dry rolled corn. Dry Distiller’s Grains however are only about 88% of the feed value of dry rolled corn. In the larger feedlots that primarily utilize steam-flaked corn, the comparative feed value is much lower. That is why the cost of the co-products will be one of the primary determining factors driving its use as a substitution for feeding corn in livestock rations.
One of the most controversial issues surrounding the production of ethanol from corn revolves around concerns over the impact to food prices. Most of the corn produced in the United States is utilized as animal feed. Rising corn prices have already had a significant impact on the cost of feeding livestock.
Most planting decisions are at least somewhat based on relative commodity prices of various crops that are feasible for planting in a particular area. In areas where corn is a viable alternative, significant crop acreage is being shifted to corn production at the expense of other crops. The effect is to lift commodity prices for all crops that are being replaced by corn production. Again, the primary impact will be on crops that are destined for animal feed, such as soybeans and other grains.
As ethanol production capacity increases, the pressure on substituting ethanol fuel crops for other commodities will increase. The result will certainly be upward pressure on the prices of food crops due to the scarcity impact on supply and demand.
Should we be concerned? The U.S. consumer pays a smaller percentage of his income for food (less than 10%) than consumers in any other part of the world (20 – 50% for middle income countries). In countries that struggle at a subsistence level of farming, there will be pressure to divert land utilization for ethanol fuel production. The impact on such economies will depend on government policies related to land ownership and control of production. In some instances, it could help to lift economies above subsistence level by creating the opportunity for higher revenue crops.
Ethanol is only a tiny piece of the energy puzzle. It is a tiny piece that is creating turmoil across the globe in the agricultural sector. Turmoil generally creates opportunities for some and failure for those who do not adapt to changes in the marketplace. It is hoped that new technologies for producing ethanol from plant fibers rather than highly concentrated energy sources such as corn will transform ethanol production in the near future. In the meantime, we can expect commodity prices to remain high which will hopefully be a boon to our rural economy.
Ethanol has been around since the first “moonshiner” discovered how to distill corn into whiskey. It is the same thing as 200 proof whiskey. It was used by Henry Ford to power some of the first Model T’s. Today it is fueling a euphoric corn market that has seen prices soar above $3.50/bushel. It has also sent turmoil through the livestock markets as feeders adjust to the realities of higher commodity prices.
The USDA estimates that ethanol yields about 25% more energy than is required to produce it. Most of the energy gain is in the form of co-products available for feed. If you measure the energy equivalence of the ethanol itself, it takes about as much energy to produce it as it yields. One gallon of ethanol contains about 2/3 of the energy of a gallon of gasoline. This means that if your vehicle achieved 30 mpg with gasoline, it would achieve only 20 mpg burning pure ethanol.
Ethanol co-products make excellent cattle feed for inclusion in feedlot rations. Some studies indicate that Wet Distiller’s Grains contain 100-112% of the value of dry rolled corn. Dry Distiller’s Grains however are only about 88% of the feed value of dry rolled corn. In the larger feedlots that primarily utilize steam-flaked corn, the comparative feed value is much lower. That is why the cost of the co-products will be one of the primary determining factors driving its use as a substitution for feeding corn in livestock rations.
One of the most controversial issues surrounding the production of ethanol from corn revolves around concerns over the impact to food prices. Most of the corn produced in the United States is utilized as animal feed. Rising corn prices have already had a significant impact on the cost of feeding livestock.
Most planting decisions are at least somewhat based on relative commodity prices of various crops that are feasible for planting in a particular area. In areas where corn is a viable alternative, significant crop acreage is being shifted to corn production at the expense of other crops. The effect is to lift commodity prices for all crops that are being replaced by corn production. Again, the primary impact will be on crops that are destined for animal feed, such as soybeans and other grains.
As ethanol production capacity increases, the pressure on substituting ethanol fuel crops for other commodities will increase. The result will certainly be upward pressure on the prices of food crops due to the scarcity impact on supply and demand.
Should we be concerned? The U.S. consumer pays a smaller percentage of his income for food (less than 10%) than consumers in any other part of the world (20 – 50% for middle income countries). In countries that struggle at a subsistence level of farming, there will be pressure to divert land utilization for ethanol fuel production. The impact on such economies will depend on government policies related to land ownership and control of production. In some instances, it could help to lift economies above subsistence level by creating the opportunity for higher revenue crops.
Ethanol is only a tiny piece of the energy puzzle. It is a tiny piece that is creating turmoil across the globe in the agricultural sector. Turmoil generally creates opportunities for some and failure for those who do not adapt to changes in the marketplace. It is hoped that new technologies for producing ethanol from plant fibers rather than highly concentrated energy sources such as corn will transform ethanol production in the near future. In the meantime, we can expect commodity prices to remain high which will hopefully be a boon to our rural economy.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Diversity of Agriculture
I had the opportunity week before last to attend the Sunbelt Exposition in Moultrie, Georgia. The Sunbelt Expo is billed as the largest farm show in the country. You certainly couldn’t disprove that by me. It was enormous.
The thing that impressed me most about the farm show was the diversity of agricultural enterprises that were represented. It was eye-opening to this West Texas native to see the wide variety of production practices. Some of them might hold promise for our area.
One of the first things that I noticed was the forestry section of the show. Lumber is an important agricultural crop in the Southeast. There were many equipment dealers and nurseries represented whose focus was on that industry. I don’t think trees are likely to become an important cash crop for our area in the near future. However, it would be nice to have a few around to slow down the wind occasionally.
Another area that received a significant amount of attention was poultry. It takes a lot of specialized equipment for large-scale broiler houses to function. One of the most interesting pieces of equipment for that industry was called a “bio-vator.” It’s purpose is not the most pleasant, but it is necessary. It is designed to turn carcasses into mulch. It consists of a long tube that looks somewhat like an exhaust pipe. It was about 4 feet in diameter and about 40 feet long. The carcasses went in one end where sawdust was added. When they came out the other end 14 days later, they were mulch. Supposedly there was virtually no odor. It could handle around 500 lbs of carcasses per day.
The Aquaculture section was also interesting. They had dug shallow ponds in the Expo grounds, lined them, and installed an aerator. One was full of catfish and one was full of shrimp. There were daily demonstrations on techniques for raising each. They also served some tasty lunches made right on the spot from freshly harvested shrimp and catfish.
Of course there were sections of the Expo related to crops that are more familiar to our area. These included corn, cotton and soybeans. Along with these crops though were sections for tobacco cultivation. Peanuts also is an important crop that was represented.
Another important crop for that area is pecans. Most of the river bottoms contained magnificent pecan trees. There were instructional seminars on proper pruning and care of the trees as well as equipment for harvesting the pecans. The scale was geared from a push-type gatherer for one or two trees up to mechanical harvest equipment for large orchards.
Because of the large amount of fruit production in the area, there were sections devoted to fruit trees and berries. That section held seminars on beekeeping which is necessary for consistent fruit production.
Livestock practices represented ranged from the poultry which I’ve already mentioned, to alpacas, swine, goats, sheep, and cattle. Most of the cattle related booths were focused on cow-calf production. The cattle breeds were the most interesting thing to me. There is a high percentage of Brahman influence in many of the breeds. Heat tolerance is definitely an issue.
The diversity of agriculture represented could be a lesson to us here on the High Plains of Texas. Many of the crops are not suitable to our climate, but some of them are. Diversifying to multiple crops can help to reduce risk from year to year. In years when some crops perform poorly, other crops may do well. We have tended to limit our production to only a handful of crops in this area. It may become increasingly important to look at alternative crops as a way of spreading market and weather risk.
The thing that impressed me most about the farm show was the diversity of agricultural enterprises that were represented. It was eye-opening to this West Texas native to see the wide variety of production practices. Some of them might hold promise for our area.
One of the first things that I noticed was the forestry section of the show. Lumber is an important agricultural crop in the Southeast. There were many equipment dealers and nurseries represented whose focus was on that industry. I don’t think trees are likely to become an important cash crop for our area in the near future. However, it would be nice to have a few around to slow down the wind occasionally.
Another area that received a significant amount of attention was poultry. It takes a lot of specialized equipment for large-scale broiler houses to function. One of the most interesting pieces of equipment for that industry was called a “bio-vator.” It’s purpose is not the most pleasant, but it is necessary. It is designed to turn carcasses into mulch. It consists of a long tube that looks somewhat like an exhaust pipe. It was about 4 feet in diameter and about 40 feet long. The carcasses went in one end where sawdust was added. When they came out the other end 14 days later, they were mulch. Supposedly there was virtually no odor. It could handle around 500 lbs of carcasses per day.
The Aquaculture section was also interesting. They had dug shallow ponds in the Expo grounds, lined them, and installed an aerator. One was full of catfish and one was full of shrimp. There were daily demonstrations on techniques for raising each. They also served some tasty lunches made right on the spot from freshly harvested shrimp and catfish.
Of course there were sections of the Expo related to crops that are more familiar to our area. These included corn, cotton and soybeans. Along with these crops though were sections for tobacco cultivation. Peanuts also is an important crop that was represented.
Another important crop for that area is pecans. Most of the river bottoms contained magnificent pecan trees. There were instructional seminars on proper pruning and care of the trees as well as equipment for harvesting the pecans. The scale was geared from a push-type gatherer for one or two trees up to mechanical harvest equipment for large orchards.
Because of the large amount of fruit production in the area, there were sections devoted to fruit trees and berries. That section held seminars on beekeeping which is necessary for consistent fruit production.
Livestock practices represented ranged from the poultry which I’ve already mentioned, to alpacas, swine, goats, sheep, and cattle. Most of the cattle related booths were focused on cow-calf production. The cattle breeds were the most interesting thing to me. There is a high percentage of Brahman influence in many of the breeds. Heat tolerance is definitely an issue.
The diversity of agriculture represented could be a lesson to us here on the High Plains of Texas. Many of the crops are not suitable to our climate, but some of them are. Diversifying to multiple crops can help to reduce risk from year to year. In years when some crops perform poorly, other crops may do well. We have tended to limit our production to only a handful of crops in this area. It may become increasingly important to look at alternative crops as a way of spreading market and weather risk.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Benefits of Conservation Buffers
High-yield agriculture involves intensive production practices that incorporate substantial levels of fertilizer and pesticide application. Because most farming enterprises apply uniform amounts across the entire field, there are areas within the field where the products are underutilized and therefore subject to runoff in irrigation or rain water. Such runoff presents a potential hazard to waterways, streams and ponds that may collect the runoff.
Conservation buffers, such as filter strips and riparian forest buffers are widely prescribed to improve and protect water quality in agricultural landscapes. The filters are typically a strip of uniform width along the margin of a field on the down-slope side that is designed to catch and filter any pesticides, fertilizers, certain pathogens, heavy metals, or sediment that may run off of the field. Common buffers include riparian buffers, filter strips, grassed waterways, shelterbelts, windbreaks, living snow fences, contour grass strips, cross-wind trap strips, shallow water areas for wildlife, field borders, alley cropping, herbaceous wind barriers, and vegetative barriers.
Buffer strips may catch snow, cut down on blowing soil, provide cover for wildlife populations and shelter for livestock during inclement weather conditions. Grassy waterways may also provide periodic grazing. Buffer strips may provide food and nesting areas for wildlife as well as to provide corridors for safe movement. They will often reduce noise and odor. Such benefits make them especially attractive when the agricultural land is near population centers.
Studies have recently been completed that suggest that variable width buffers are more effective in controlling potentially hazardous runoff. Frequently there are certain areas of a given field that produce a greater volume of water runoff than other areas. Such an area might be at the foot of a slope or in the path of a former waterway that has been filled. In such cases, a wider buffer may be necessary to provide adequate capture of sediment and hazardous materials.
Conservation buffers around confined livestock facilities may help to meet legal requirements of runoff control. Grassed waterways and buffer zones can prevent undesirable escape of nutrients into streams and other natural bodies of water. Tree rows can help to reduce dust, odor and noise from feeding operations as well as to capture nutrients and prevent their escape into surrounding areas. Tree rows help to provide a screen that will create a more positive image for casual observers of the operation.
In certain areas, conservation buffers can contribute to the revenue of the farming operation. Such revenue can be derived from hunting leases because of the improved wildlife habitat on the farm. Careful planning of the conservation buffers to provide food and shelter to pheasant and quail populations helps to maintain their health – particularly during seasons when field crops are unavailable. In locations with deer populations, shelter belts can provide bedding areas and cover.
Livestock water is another issue that must be considered. If field runoff is unchecked, farm ponds can become unusable due to silting. They also can become hazardous to the health of livestock due to pesticide and heavy metals concentrating in them. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, adequate buffer strips have been shown to remove up to 50% or more of pesticides, 60% or more of certain pathogens, and 75% or more of sediment. Such considerations, along with the various programs available through the NRCS, make buffer strips an economical control method that enhances the value of a farm and provides a visually pleasing and healthy environment.
Farming often comes under fire from citizens concerned about the environment and from those who are bothered by the odor and noise that may be created. Conservation buffers are one method to help allay such concerns and to create a positive image for the farming community.
Conservation buffers, such as filter strips and riparian forest buffers are widely prescribed to improve and protect water quality in agricultural landscapes. The filters are typically a strip of uniform width along the margin of a field on the down-slope side that is designed to catch and filter any pesticides, fertilizers, certain pathogens, heavy metals, or sediment that may run off of the field. Common buffers include riparian buffers, filter strips, grassed waterways, shelterbelts, windbreaks, living snow fences, contour grass strips, cross-wind trap strips, shallow water areas for wildlife, field borders, alley cropping, herbaceous wind barriers, and vegetative barriers.
Buffer strips may catch snow, cut down on blowing soil, provide cover for wildlife populations and shelter for livestock during inclement weather conditions. Grassy waterways may also provide periodic grazing. Buffer strips may provide food and nesting areas for wildlife as well as to provide corridors for safe movement. They will often reduce noise and odor. Such benefits make them especially attractive when the agricultural land is near population centers.
Studies have recently been completed that suggest that variable width buffers are more effective in controlling potentially hazardous runoff. Frequently there are certain areas of a given field that produce a greater volume of water runoff than other areas. Such an area might be at the foot of a slope or in the path of a former waterway that has been filled. In such cases, a wider buffer may be necessary to provide adequate capture of sediment and hazardous materials.
Conservation buffers around confined livestock facilities may help to meet legal requirements of runoff control. Grassed waterways and buffer zones can prevent undesirable escape of nutrients into streams and other natural bodies of water. Tree rows can help to reduce dust, odor and noise from feeding operations as well as to capture nutrients and prevent their escape into surrounding areas. Tree rows help to provide a screen that will create a more positive image for casual observers of the operation.
In certain areas, conservation buffers can contribute to the revenue of the farming operation. Such revenue can be derived from hunting leases because of the improved wildlife habitat on the farm. Careful planning of the conservation buffers to provide food and shelter to pheasant and quail populations helps to maintain their health – particularly during seasons when field crops are unavailable. In locations with deer populations, shelter belts can provide bedding areas and cover.
Livestock water is another issue that must be considered. If field runoff is unchecked, farm ponds can become unusable due to silting. They also can become hazardous to the health of livestock due to pesticide and heavy metals concentrating in them. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, adequate buffer strips have been shown to remove up to 50% or more of pesticides, 60% or more of certain pathogens, and 75% or more of sediment. Such considerations, along with the various programs available through the NRCS, make buffer strips an economical control method that enhances the value of a farm and provides a visually pleasing and healthy environment.
Farming often comes under fire from citizens concerned about the environment and from those who are bothered by the odor and noise that may be created. Conservation buffers are one method to help allay such concerns and to create a positive image for the farming community.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
DNA Testing in Cattle
One of the newest technologies to be applied to livestock is DNA testing. Although still in its infancy, DNA testing shows promise of significant economic benefit to purebred and commercial cattle raisers and to cattle feeders.
Much excitement was generated in the 1990’s with the development of technologies to identify specific genetic markers from DNA samples. The rush to capitalize on the technology was a result of the promise of significant economic benefit to producers. It was anticipated that within a short period of time, livestock breeders would be able to select for specific genetic characteristics that would result in a uniform product with the highest possible value. To many, it appears that the technology has fizzled.
While the “splash” hasn’t been what was projected, the scientists have quietly and steadily been working to identify genetic markers for characteristics that are important to the production process. To date in cattle, markers have been identified for tenderness, fat thickness, yield grade, hot carcass weight, quality grade, marbling, and horned/polled. It also is possible to determine parentage.
The homemaker going to the grocery store to purchase meat doesn’t need to understand the effects this technology will have on her selection. She only wants to know that the product she chooses will be of the highest quality. That quality is determined by many of these genetic markers that are now identifiable.
Pure Bred cattle operations have selected for specific characteristics for many generations. Such selection has resulted in the evolution of cattle types from the short-legged, boxy type of the 1950’s to the tall, lean, higher yielding types we see today. One of the difficulties in making that transition though, is the time required for selecting, breeding, raising, and finally evaluating the resulting progeny for the desired characteristics. DNA testing technologies can significantly reduce that timeframe by allowing the breeder to identify the desirable and undesirable traits of an animal at a much earlier age.
Commercial cattle producers face a different set of problems. They often only know half of the information needed to make good decisions on selecting for specific characteristics to improve their calf crop. Typically, they know the mother of the calf, but because of range conditions, they often don’t know the calf’s sire. They don’t know which bulls are producing the greatest number of calves, and they don’t know which bulls are producing the calves with the characteristics that they are seeking to enhance. DNA testing can determine the parentage of the calf. This allows the rancher to eliminate those animals that are not producing and to retain breeding stock from the bulls producing the desired traits.
When you look at the value of genetic testing from the feedlot’s perspective, you are limited to working with the calf. The value of cattle marketed is often based on the uniformity of the pen of animals, the performance characteristics – such as feed efficiency – and if marketed on a value-based grid, the quality potential of the cattle. If such characteristics are known at the beginning of the feeding period, rations can be adjusted to achieve the greatest value potential of the pen of cattle based on their anticipated performance and quality grade characteristics. Feeding cattle that will grade choice at fewer days on feed results in a higher potential for profitable performance. On the other hand, some sets of cattle may have high genetic potential for tenderness and be a better fit for a branded product that focuses on lean but tender cuts of meat.
The potential of genetic testing in cattle is still in its infancy. However, that potential is enormous. Ultimately, the homemaker will determine the success of the technology. When the shopper can go to the meat case in the local grocery store and select a cut of beef for supper without worrying about how tender it will be, the industry will have scored a great success. Consistent quality products are what we are striving to achieve.
Much excitement was generated in the 1990’s with the development of technologies to identify specific genetic markers from DNA samples. The rush to capitalize on the technology was a result of the promise of significant economic benefit to producers. It was anticipated that within a short period of time, livestock breeders would be able to select for specific genetic characteristics that would result in a uniform product with the highest possible value. To many, it appears that the technology has fizzled.
While the “splash” hasn’t been what was projected, the scientists have quietly and steadily been working to identify genetic markers for characteristics that are important to the production process. To date in cattle, markers have been identified for tenderness, fat thickness, yield grade, hot carcass weight, quality grade, marbling, and horned/polled. It also is possible to determine parentage.
The homemaker going to the grocery store to purchase meat doesn’t need to understand the effects this technology will have on her selection. She only wants to know that the product she chooses will be of the highest quality. That quality is determined by many of these genetic markers that are now identifiable.
Pure Bred cattle operations have selected for specific characteristics for many generations. Such selection has resulted in the evolution of cattle types from the short-legged, boxy type of the 1950’s to the tall, lean, higher yielding types we see today. One of the difficulties in making that transition though, is the time required for selecting, breeding, raising, and finally evaluating the resulting progeny for the desired characteristics. DNA testing technologies can significantly reduce that timeframe by allowing the breeder to identify the desirable and undesirable traits of an animal at a much earlier age.
Commercial cattle producers face a different set of problems. They often only know half of the information needed to make good decisions on selecting for specific characteristics to improve their calf crop. Typically, they know the mother of the calf, but because of range conditions, they often don’t know the calf’s sire. They don’t know which bulls are producing the greatest number of calves, and they don’t know which bulls are producing the calves with the characteristics that they are seeking to enhance. DNA testing can determine the parentage of the calf. This allows the rancher to eliminate those animals that are not producing and to retain breeding stock from the bulls producing the desired traits.
When you look at the value of genetic testing from the feedlot’s perspective, you are limited to working with the calf. The value of cattle marketed is often based on the uniformity of the pen of animals, the performance characteristics – such as feed efficiency – and if marketed on a value-based grid, the quality potential of the cattle. If such characteristics are known at the beginning of the feeding period, rations can be adjusted to achieve the greatest value potential of the pen of cattle based on their anticipated performance and quality grade characteristics. Feeding cattle that will grade choice at fewer days on feed results in a higher potential for profitable performance. On the other hand, some sets of cattle may have high genetic potential for tenderness and be a better fit for a branded product that focuses on lean but tender cuts of meat.
The potential of genetic testing in cattle is still in its infancy. However, that potential is enormous. Ultimately, the homemaker will determine the success of the technology. When the shopper can go to the meat case in the local grocery store and select a cut of beef for supper without worrying about how tender it will be, the industry will have scored a great success. Consistent quality products are what we are striving to achieve.
Monday, October 1, 2007
The Future Shape of Agriculture?
That agriculture has changed through the years is obvious to anyone who cares to look. It began in the dark recesses of history when man first decided that he could grow his own food rather than hunt for it or gather it in the wild. Today it is a high-technology, capital intensive business that requires expertise in multiple disciplines for success. Where will it go in the future?
There are many today who believe agriculture will transition from the large-scale farming operations of today to smaller, more diverse businesses that supply a local market. Some even envision high-rise farms located in skyscrapers in the inner city environment. Such skyscraper farms will be energy self-sufficient with strong emphasis on water and nutrient recycling through artificial climate systems.
Urban sprawl continues to encroach upon prime farming land across the country. Suburbs of major cities spread farther and farther from the city centers replacing dairies, orchards and grain fields with houses, apartments, and businesses. The competition between agriculture and people for water becomes more intense daily, especially in drier areas of the country that are dependent on aquifers and reservoirs for their water supply.
Drought situations in the west over the past year have highlighted the competing demands of agriculture and people for the same water resources. In the illogical world of political expediency, it is often agriculture that suffers. As long as we live in a country of bountiful food this will likely be the case.
Energy costs are another factor of agriculture production that will receive increasing scrutiny over the coming years. There is hope within the farming community that increasing emphasis on bio-fuels will not only increase revenue potential through crop sales but will create the opportunity for becoming fuel independent through on-farm manufacture of bio-diesel and ethanol. With additional energy supplementation through wind and solar power, farmers could essentially “disconnect” from the grid, or better yet, sell electricity to the power companies.
Global warming is another issue that must be considered as we look to the future of agriculture. Whether you believe that global warming is man-induced, or the result of natural climate cycles, there is evidence that warming is indeed occurring. If nothing else, the “idea” that weather patterns are being affected is causing legislation to regulate behavior that will have an impact on agriculture. From alarmist hype about methane from cows, to the cost of fuel, public perception of agriculture will result in regulatory changes that will impact the way we farm.
So, what is my vision for the future of agriculture? Definitely positive, but full of turmoil as we transition from an economy based on fossil fuels to one based on alternative energy sources. Growing population will continue to create the need for more food. The energy infrastructure will become more fractured and localized with much of the energy consumed produced locally rather than delivered by large conglomerates. Transportation costs and efficiency will affect how farm products are delivered to market. The concept of “skyscraper” farms may not be as far-fetched as our first reaction makes them to be. Farms will likely become more diversified and even more dependent on technology. Precision technologies, on-farm energy production and increasing vertical integration will become the norm. Regulations will change in nature from the current form of price support programs to more oppressive rules on nutrient and waste management and possibly even zoning.
The future will require even greater capital investment than is currently demanded. This will result in a bi-modal division of agriculture into a few large corporations controlling vast resources on the one hand and a large number of micro-farms on the other hand that target specific market niches such as fruits and vegetables for local markets.
Now, like any other prognosticator, I want to put in my disclaimer. All of this is speculation. Who knows what the future will really hold? One guess is as good as another. The only thing we can be sure of is that change will happen. Let’s hope it is all good.
There are many today who believe agriculture will transition from the large-scale farming operations of today to smaller, more diverse businesses that supply a local market. Some even envision high-rise farms located in skyscrapers in the inner city environment. Such skyscraper farms will be energy self-sufficient with strong emphasis on water and nutrient recycling through artificial climate systems.
Urban sprawl continues to encroach upon prime farming land across the country. Suburbs of major cities spread farther and farther from the city centers replacing dairies, orchards and grain fields with houses, apartments, and businesses. The competition between agriculture and people for water becomes more intense daily, especially in drier areas of the country that are dependent on aquifers and reservoirs for their water supply.
Drought situations in the west over the past year have highlighted the competing demands of agriculture and people for the same water resources. In the illogical world of political expediency, it is often agriculture that suffers. As long as we live in a country of bountiful food this will likely be the case.
Energy costs are another factor of agriculture production that will receive increasing scrutiny over the coming years. There is hope within the farming community that increasing emphasis on bio-fuels will not only increase revenue potential through crop sales but will create the opportunity for becoming fuel independent through on-farm manufacture of bio-diesel and ethanol. With additional energy supplementation through wind and solar power, farmers could essentially “disconnect” from the grid, or better yet, sell electricity to the power companies.
Global warming is another issue that must be considered as we look to the future of agriculture. Whether you believe that global warming is man-induced, or the result of natural climate cycles, there is evidence that warming is indeed occurring. If nothing else, the “idea” that weather patterns are being affected is causing legislation to regulate behavior that will have an impact on agriculture. From alarmist hype about methane from cows, to the cost of fuel, public perception of agriculture will result in regulatory changes that will impact the way we farm.
So, what is my vision for the future of agriculture? Definitely positive, but full of turmoil as we transition from an economy based on fossil fuels to one based on alternative energy sources. Growing population will continue to create the need for more food. The energy infrastructure will become more fractured and localized with much of the energy consumed produced locally rather than delivered by large conglomerates. Transportation costs and efficiency will affect how farm products are delivered to market. The concept of “skyscraper” farms may not be as far-fetched as our first reaction makes them to be. Farms will likely become more diversified and even more dependent on technology. Precision technologies, on-farm energy production and increasing vertical integration will become the norm. Regulations will change in nature from the current form of price support programs to more oppressive rules on nutrient and waste management and possibly even zoning.
The future will require even greater capital investment than is currently demanded. This will result in a bi-modal division of agriculture into a few large corporations controlling vast resources on the one hand and a large number of micro-farms on the other hand that target specific market niches such as fruits and vegetables for local markets.
Now, like any other prognosticator, I want to put in my disclaimer. All of this is speculation. Who knows what the future will really hold? One guess is as good as another. The only thing we can be sure of is that change will happen. Let’s hope it is all good.
Friday, September 21, 2007
National Animal Identification System
The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is a voluntary State-Federal-Industry partnership that consists of a modern streamlined information system designed to help producers and animal health officials respond quickly to any animal health events occurring in the United States. The NAIS came about because of outbreaks of BSE in Europe, Canada and the U.S.
Livestock producers are traditionally very independent individuals. Government oversight and intrusion into their business is something that has a long history of resistance within the livestock industry. If viewed as a government program, NAIS will be doomed for failure unless it becomes mandatory. If it can be implemented within a voluntary framework, the industry has the opportunity to help shape the program to their benefit rather than burden.
NAIS begins with premise registration. Registering your premises with the NAIS is simple, quick and free. It does not require your participation in any of the other components of the NAIS.
Why should you register your premise with the NAIS? The primary reason is that it opens the lines of communication between you and animal health authorities. If there is a disease outbreak or other animal health event, you are ensured of being alerted. If the event puts your animals at risk, you will be provided with the information and assistance to take action to protect your herd. This was important to producers in Southeastern Colorado, Northeast New Mexico, and Western Kansas this past winter. Those producers whose premises were registered as part of the NAIS were first to receive assistance during the extreme blizzard conditions that occurred. Because their premises were registered, they were the first to receive emergency hay drops.
The second component of the NAIS is animal identification. Animal identification can be individual or group/lot. The individual animal identification number (AIN) is unique and stays with the animal for its lifetime. It links the animal to its birthplace or premises of origin. When combined with animal tracing, the AIN links the animal to each premises/location that has been reported for it. The individual identification option is best for breeding animals such as herd bulls that may be transferred individually from operation to operation. If your primary enterprise is selling a calf crop as a group to stocker or feedlot operations, the group/lot identification may be the best option.
The AIN is not restricted to use within the NAIS. The same identifier may be used with compliant animal health or breeding herd management systems. This provides maximum flexibility for the producer.
The final component of the NAIS is animal tracing. It is currently under development through a cooperative effort of state and private sector groups. Once this component of the system is in place, the producer may choose the industry database within which to enroll their animals. This will give producers the ability to know where purchased animals have been and to what potential diseases they may have been exposed. This component of the system also will provide consumers with the greatest possible assurance that in the event of an animal disease outbreak, control measures can be expedited to locate all potentially exposed animals and remove them from the production chain until the disease outbreak is resolved.
It is the stated goal of the NAIS to be able to trace to its origin within 48 hours, any disease outbreak. Such a goal will require extensive cooperation among many industry components to achieve. It will involve federal and state officials, livestock auction markets and dealers, feedlots, stocker operators, cow/calf producers, and all other entities which may handle the animals.
The result of implementing the NAIS will be a stronger, safer food production industry that consumers can be assured is providing them with the best quality product. Producers will benefit from a more stable market less subject to the scares of media hype.
Livestock producers are traditionally very independent individuals. Government oversight and intrusion into their business is something that has a long history of resistance within the livestock industry. If viewed as a government program, NAIS will be doomed for failure unless it becomes mandatory. If it can be implemented within a voluntary framework, the industry has the opportunity to help shape the program to their benefit rather than burden.
NAIS begins with premise registration. Registering your premises with the NAIS is simple, quick and free. It does not require your participation in any of the other components of the NAIS.
Why should you register your premise with the NAIS? The primary reason is that it opens the lines of communication between you and animal health authorities. If there is a disease outbreak or other animal health event, you are ensured of being alerted. If the event puts your animals at risk, you will be provided with the information and assistance to take action to protect your herd. This was important to producers in Southeastern Colorado, Northeast New Mexico, and Western Kansas this past winter. Those producers whose premises were registered as part of the NAIS were first to receive assistance during the extreme blizzard conditions that occurred. Because their premises were registered, they were the first to receive emergency hay drops.
The second component of the NAIS is animal identification. Animal identification can be individual or group/lot. The individual animal identification number (AIN) is unique and stays with the animal for its lifetime. It links the animal to its birthplace or premises of origin. When combined with animal tracing, the AIN links the animal to each premises/location that has been reported for it. The individual identification option is best for breeding animals such as herd bulls that may be transferred individually from operation to operation. If your primary enterprise is selling a calf crop as a group to stocker or feedlot operations, the group/lot identification may be the best option.
The AIN is not restricted to use within the NAIS. The same identifier may be used with compliant animal health or breeding herd management systems. This provides maximum flexibility for the producer.
The final component of the NAIS is animal tracing. It is currently under development through a cooperative effort of state and private sector groups. Once this component of the system is in place, the producer may choose the industry database within which to enroll their animals. This will give producers the ability to know where purchased animals have been and to what potential diseases they may have been exposed. This component of the system also will provide consumers with the greatest possible assurance that in the event of an animal disease outbreak, control measures can be expedited to locate all potentially exposed animals and remove them from the production chain until the disease outbreak is resolved.
It is the stated goal of the NAIS to be able to trace to its origin within 48 hours, any disease outbreak. Such a goal will require extensive cooperation among many industry components to achieve. It will involve federal and state officials, livestock auction markets and dealers, feedlots, stocker operators, cow/calf producers, and all other entities which may handle the animals.
The result of implementing the NAIS will be a stronger, safer food production industry that consumers can be assured is providing them with the best quality product. Producers will benefit from a more stable market less subject to the scares of media hype.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
