Heifers key to genetic progress
By DON STONEMAN
Breeding Holstein heifers to natural service costs money down the road, warns Ontario agriculture ministry dairy specialist Jack Rodenburg.He points out that on a typical Ontario dairy farm, first-calf heifers are the mothers of 32 per cent of the calves born. So opting for natural service from a beef or a Jersey bull chosen for easy calving eliminates one-third of possible Holstein replacements. As well, heifers are likely the best genetics on the farm and are most likely to pass on their value to calves.
By comparison, second calvers have one-quarter of the calves, third calvers 19 per cent and the other 24 per cent are offspring of older cows.
The older the cows, the further they have slipped from the pace of genetic progress, Rodenburg says.
Since cows in a typical herd are 30 to 36 months older than heifers, the heifers are likely to average five or six per cent more milk than those cows produced during their first lactation, Rodenburg says. So it makes sense to breed them to top bulls and keep their female offspring in the herd.
Studies show there is an average of five years of genetic improvement between an average AI stud and a natural service bull, Rodenburg says. At the current rate of genetic progress, he estimates farmers breeding AI gain 579 kg of milk, 21.1 kg of fat, and 19.5 kg of protein.
In a 60-cow herd with a 30-per cent replacement rate, and one-third of the replacements from heifers, the seven AI heifer matings will produce more than 4,000 kg of extra milk per year or more than 10,000 kg per lifetime. That's worth $5,600 in extra milk sales per year due to improved genetics from heifer AI.
Breeding heifers naturally because they are several miles away and out of sight on pasture is a "poor excuse" to run a bull with them, Rodenburg says. "It's a fairly costly mistake," Rodenburg says. Heifers have high conception rates and "really synchronize well."
Herd managers who do run heifers on pasture could use synchronization drugs, bring them all into heat at once, and group AI the bunch every six weeks until all are pregnant.
Though Rodenburg remains "fundamentally opposed" to bulls on a dairy farm, he says it makes sense to run a clean-up bull with low-reproducing groups.
Rodenburg has heard from people in the industry who feel bull use is on the rise, but there is no clear trend.
"We're in murky waters here," says Vickie Davey, Gencor's marketing manager. There's no way to estimate how many farms use natural service, she says.
© copyright 1998 Agriculture Publishing Company Limited.
back
Pros and cons of running the bull
There are advantages and shortcomings to using a clean-up bull on a dairy farm, says Katie Ballard, director of research at the Miner Institute, Chazy, N.Y.
PROS
- Reliability: Bulls are on duty all the time
- Cost savings in reduced arm services and units of semen.
- Cost of raising the bull is offset by his salvage value when shipped to market
- "Problem breeders" may be settled by natural service
- Cows that respond positively to a pregnancy check may re-absorb the fetus. A bull will re-breed these cows and minimize losses due to holding open cows
- In barns with limited dry cow facilities, a bull may breed cows in a more timely fashion, returning them quickly to the milking stringCONS
- A young bull kept or purchased to breed the herd may not know what to do with a cow in heat. The effort and money spent is wasted
- With low beef prices, the salvage value of a bull is about one-third replacement cost
- Purchased bulls are a health risk to the cow herd
- For bulls to be useful in "catching" cows that re-absorb their fetuses, the bull may be kept with both pregnant and open cows in a middle- or low-production group. The bull may also breed cows the farmer would rather AI
- Overestimation of genetic potential
- The biggest disadvantage is the safety risk. Even dehorned bulls are still equipped to inflict fatal wounds to humans.
© copyright 1998 Agriculture Publishing Company Limited.
back
U.S. dairies draw big subsidies
By DON STONEMAN
The U.S. is backsliding on promises to reduce support to its dairy industry, says a study completed for Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC)."We are not at the front of the line when it comes to subsidies," concludes trade lawyer Peter Clark, who helped write the study.
The study has led DFC's economic advisers to conclude in their own report that if Ottawa were to deregulate the Canadian dairy industry, farmers would need substantially more government support to compete with dairy farmers south of the border.
U.S. dairy farmers received more financial support from Washington last year than they received in 1989, says the study prepared by Ottawa-based trade law firm Grey, Clark Shih and Associates. The conducted a similar study in 1990.
The consultant's report says benefits to U.S. dairy farmers amounted to US$6.7 billion, or US$4.68 a hundredweight of milk produced in 1989. In 1997, government expenditures on the dairy industry totalled US$8.7 billion or US$5.63 per cwt. That is the equivalent of C$17.70 per hl, based on the $1.18 exchange rate in 1989. See U.S. Farmers Get More.
Washington and Ottawa have responded differently to the rules developed under the Uruguay round of GATT talks in the mid-1990s, Clark says. Canada reduced support for agriculture while Wash-ington redesigned programs. "They aren't spending any less money. They just call it something different."
The Americans have built infrastructure programs that create export markets that would not otherwise exist, thus propping up prices for the bulk of production sold for consumption in the U.S.
This "strategic shifting of support funds from programs to infrastructure may result in creating an appearance of reducing support to U.S. agriculture," while in fact the actual cost to governments has been maintained or may even be increased, the report says.
U.S. dairy farmers have also benefited from conservation assistance, subsidized water in arid areas and low-interest loans. Many programs are highly flexible in their spending, depending on the need to export food. Export Enhancement Program (EEP) spending last year was cut to US$100 million. But the Clark study points out it can easily be geared up when there is a need. With the economic crisis in Pacific Rim markets, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is expected to boost EEP funding to US$550 million next year.
The U.S. has already extended credits to agricultural customers in Asia, with Korea receiving US$1.1 billion. This has muted market signals that should tell American producers to slow down milk production as overseas markets dry up, the study says.
The Clark study paid particular attention to subsidies that promote production in the arid Western regions, where some states enjoy double digit expansion in milk production from year to year.
In California's Westland Water District, for example, farmers pay about US$17 for water needed to irrigate an acre of land when the real cost is US$42. In the Quincy Water District of Oregon, irrigating a 960-acre farm with a foot of subsidized water costs farmers about US$1,900, while the full cost is about US$70,000. This land is then used to produce forage for dairy farms.
Dairy farmers also get a premium based on how far they are from the former centre of the dairy industry in Wisconsin. "The impact ... appears to be to raise the price of product in states distant from the Lake states while lowering the cost of production in these same [arid or semi-arid] states," the study says.
© copyright 1998 Agriculture Publishing Company Limited.
backBY DON STONEMAN
The seed has been planted for a new beef organization dedicated to reversing the decline of the Ontario feedlot industry.Last month in Walkerton, feedlot operators appointed a nine-member steering committee to write a constitution for the organization, and to set up an annual meeting for its members.
Minutes of the Walkerton meeting reveal that farmers were concerned about a wide range of issues. Health concerns impeding feeder cattle imports from the U.S. was a key issue. Also on the list were grading, market development, the viability of packers, strategic planning for the future and consumer education. Cattle feeders want to make recommendations to the Beef Information Centre on how to spend the checkoff dollars paid by producers on sales cattle.
The organizers are reluctant to reveal much information about the embryonic body's goals. Media spokesman Dave Gardiner, Kirkton, refused to be interviewed unless granted approval of any article before publication.
The Ontario beef feeding industry has not fared well in recent years. From its zenith in 1981, when 1,084,233 fed heifers and steers were slaughtered in Ontario, there has been a steady decline. See Ontario's feedlot decline.
Last year there were only 574,000 steers and heifers processed in Ontario, with a small number being imported from the U.S. and another 47,000 head being shipped to U.S. packers.
Part of the reason for the decline in the industry is a limited supply of calves to feed.
Graeme Hedley, executive vice-president of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association (OCA), says only 109,791 feeder calves were shipped to Ontario from the West last year, a sharp decline from 148,097 in 1996 and 194,587 in 1995. Back in 1980, Ontario feedlot operators bought nearly 647,000 Western calves to finish on their farms.
Bob Dobson, Renfrew, OCA president, thinks there's room for an organization representing feeder interests in the province.
"I'm looking at it as a positive," Dobson says. The OCA executive has invited the steering committee to meet with them in late May. "If they can get their concerns formulated and put on paper, maybe we can look at them," Dobson says. "We want the whole industry to prosper. We will take them very seriously."
Dobson points out that the OCA has tried to respond to cattle feeder concerns. A few years ago the mandatory checkoff was based on a percentage of the value of cattle sold. Feedlot operators felt they were paying more than their fair share, since a $500 calf didn't attract as much checkoff as a $1,100 finished animal.
"We changed it," Dobson says. Now there is a fixed checkoff of $2.75 a head for all animals sold, and farmers selling their dairy bull calves feel shortchanged. "It's difficult to make it fair across the board," he says.
The Ontario feedlot operators are taking their cues for a special feedlot organization from Alberta, home to both the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association and the industry-wide Alberta Cattle Commission. The ACFA has an annual budget of about $500,000, says its general manager, Ron Axelson. There are about 250 cattle feeding members and another 100 associate members. Fees are based on standing feedlot capacity with a minimum of $250 and a cap of $2,500. Some Alberta cattle companies feed close to 100,000 animals at a time, Axelson says.
The feedlot association is issue-oriented, he says. Most of the association's time in the spring is spent dealing with water-quality issues, a major concern around Lethbridge, the heart of the feedlot industry, he says.
The ACC's general manager, Gary Sergeant, says the two organizations "work quite closely together on a number of initiatives." The feeders tend to be "the larger portion of the cattle feeding industry." While there are 35,000 beef producers paying a checkoff to the ACC, there are about 10,000 "very serious producers making most of their income from cattle."
The feedlot organization has a mandate to think strategically and has become a source of information on new technology, Sergeant says.
The organization has its own annual convention and sends a director to the cattle commission board. "They set themselves up with a mandate to be a very member-directed service," Sergeant says.
Like Alberta, Ontario has about 35,000 farmers paying a checkoff on cattle they sell and automatically becoming members of the OCA. Hedley says there are no figures on the number of feedlot operators in the province, partly because there is no definition of what constitutes a feedlot.
Defining the qualifications for its members will be a challenge that the nascent Ontario organization must face. "Is a guy feeding 50 heifers and steers a feedlot operator?" Hedley asks.
© copyright 1998 Agriculture Publishing Company Limited.
back