Download (PDF) - The Western Producer

More documents

Recommendations

Info

88 DECEMBER 13, 2012 | WWW.PRODUCER.COM | THE WESTERN PRODUCER Safe-GuardTM (fenbendazole) is a different class of dewormer than pour-ons and injectables. It works fast to stop internal parasites and the hidden damage they cause. These parasites suppress feed intake, reduce average daily gain, hurt nutrient absorption and immune function, reducing the health and performance of your cattle. 1,2 Use Safe-Guard as part of your parasite control program for more pounds of high quality beef in the feedlot. 3,4 Visit www.AddSafe-Guard.com for more information or contact your veterinarian. 1 Endoparasite control, L.R. Ballweber, Veterinary Clinics Food Animal, 2006, 22:451-461. 2 Economic analysis of pharmaceutical technologies in modern beef production, J.D. Lawrence and M.A. Ibarburu, Iowa State University, 2007. 3 Pasture deworming and (or) subsequent feedlot deworming with fenbendazole. Effects of grazing performance, feedlot performance and carcass traits of yearling steers, R. Smith, et al., The Bovine Practitioner, 2000, 34:104-114. 4 A fenbendazole oral drench in addition to an ivermectin pour-on reduces parasite burden and improves feedlot and carcass performance of fi nishing heifers compared with endectocides alone, C.D. Reinhardt, J.P. Hutcheson and W.T. Nichols, Journal of Animal Science, 2006, 84:2243-2250. TM Safe-Guard is a trademark of Intervet International B.V. Used under license. Merck Animal Health (known as MSD Animal Health outside the US and Canada), operating in Canada as Intervet Canada Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. MERCK and MSD are trademarks of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. Copyright © 2012 Intervet International B.V., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. All rights reserved.
LIVESTOCK LIVESTOCK EDITOR: BARB GLEN | Ph: 403-942-2214 F: 403-942-2405 | E-MAIL: BARB.GLEN@PRODUCER.COM | TWITTER: @BARBGLEN ALBERTA BEEF PRODUCERS | INQUIRY REQUEST Producers call for inquiry into XL Foods Looking for answers | Producer group wants to know what caused E. coli contamination BY BARBARA DUCKWORTH CALGARY BUREAU Beef producers want to know what went wrong at XL Foods following Canada’s largest ever meat recall. The beef processing company at Brooks, Alta., was closed for a month this fall after the discovery of E. coli 0157:H contamination. International markets were lost, beef from 5,000 head of cattle was destroyed and questions grew over how things got out of hand. Alberta Beef Producers passed a resolution at its recent annual meeting calling for an independent inquiry, and the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association is demanding answers to a long list of questions submitted to the federal government. “It is a big question everywhere — what happened?” rancher Bob Lowe of Nanton said at the ABP meeting held in Calgary Dec. 3-5. “It is not a matter of laying blame,” he said. “We just want answers as to what happened.” The CCA submitted its questions to an expert advisory committee within the federal government. “We put together a list of 25 questions based on things like how did the recall end up getting expanded to muscle cuts … questions that we were hearing from producers,” said CCA vice-president Dave Solverson. There are also questions about how communications were handled and technical matters. Federal agriculture Gerry Ritz said in a Dec. 7 interview that the advisory committee set up to look into the matter is expected to take months, said. He defended the work of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the extent of the recall. “We take it to heart and don’t want to see those types of issues happen but we will never apologize for the size and the scope of the recall. If that is what is required, that is what we will do,” he said. He is also confident the management style of new owners JBS-USA will introduce a new food safety culture and new federal legislation for food safety should improve future investigations. In the meantime, XL Foods is processing up to 2,500 head per day. JBS has an option to buy the troubled company and its assets for $100 million but said it is still evaluating the deal. Willie Van Solkema, a former president of sales and operations at XL Foods, was named president of JBS- Canada Dec. 5. Sterling Fox, head of cattle procurement for XL, now holds that same job within the new framework. “There are a lot of positive things with JBS coming to Canada,” Fox told the ABP meeting. “I believe they will drive a ton of value throughout the Canadian market.” As a multinational company, JBS has a presence in 151 countries and produces a large portfolio of branded beef products. XL’s production should return to 4,000 head per day once it regains its license to export to the United States. “If we had access to beef in the U.S., we could be back up to full production,” Fox said. Bacterial contamination and food safety is an ongoing challenge for large processors. Scott Entz of Cargill Meat Solutions of High River, Alta., said the plant uses practices, training and specific interventions to reduce contamination at every step of the process. “Even at Cargill, I can’t stand up and tell you we are never ever going to have microbes,” he said. “If the loads coming in are high enough, with all these steps we can’t guarantee ourselves we have eliminated all that microbe.” He said the company conducts regular staff retraining, particularly in areas where the risk of contamination is higher. It has also installed 120 video cameras throughout the plant to observe practices. Employees do not know when the cameras are photographing them. Entz said the cameras are used for training and correcting mistakes rather than for discipline. The company installed a new skinning line in 2005, in which carcasses are washed to remove dirt and manure before the hide is removed. One practice that is not in use is irradiation. It is approved in the United States, but Canada does not allow it. Cargill is working with the CCA for regulatory change. However, its use is minimal in the U.S. because of public perception. UDDERLY GORGEOUS TRAILING THE HERD THE WESTERN PRODUCER | WWW.PRODUCER.COM | DECEMBER 13 , 2012 Calf weight gains are drastically aff ected if cows’ udders aren’t working well. Veterinarian Roy Lewis gives advice on identifying udder problems and maintaining udder health. | Page 91 Jeff Taylor follows cows up the coulee on the Flying R Ranch near Elkwater, Alta., just before sunset on Dec. 4. | CAMILLE REESOR PHOTO FEED | RESEARCH Experts working to identify more feed efficient animals Looking for savings | The rising cost of feeding has officials looking for genetic markers that could bring savings to producers BY MARY MACARTHUR CAMROSE BUREAU RED DEER — Cattle producers can save more than $40 per head per year in feed costs by choosing more feed efficient animals, says a beef cattle management specialist. The growing cost of feed grain will make selecting cattle for feed efficiency an important tool for producers, John Basarab told producers during the Western Canadian Grazing Conference. “We as a beef industry cannot ignore that,” said Basarab, a research scientist with the University of Alberta and a beef cattle management and genetics specialist with Alberta Agriculture. “Inefficient animals eat for fun.” Basarab has been researching feed efficiency since the 1990s, but it is only in recent years, as feed grain costs rise, that producers and industry associations have taken a closer look at selecting feed efficient cattle. Jeff Hyatt, beef development co-ordinator with the Canadian Hereford Association, said the organization is testing 900 Hereford bulls over the next three years to identify the most feed efficient animals. “We want to identify the most feed efficient animals within the breed,” said Hyatt. The association then wants to develop a marker for the feed efficiency gene to help identify animals that have the ability to eat less and gain the same. The bulls will be tested at Olds College in Olds, Alta., and Cattleland Feedyards in Strathmore, Alta., using the GrowSafe Systems, which can measure individual feed intake. Hyatt said finding more efficient animals is key to keeping the industry profitable, particularly if producers can save $40 a head in feed when only a few years ago profit was $20 per head. Basarab said feed efficiency is a moderately inheritable trait. Selecting for animals that eat less but gain the same weight seems to have no affect on growth rate, body size, calving ease, birth rate and weaning weight. Feed costs for slaughter heifers and steers from efficient sires could be reduced by $16 a head over a 150-day finishing period compared to the offspring of inefficient sires. The same 3.7 percent cost saving could reduce feeding costs for efficient 89 cows by $26 a head compared to inefficient cows, he added. Improved feed efficiency will also help Canadian cattle producers compete with breeding programs around the world, which are also looking at feed efficiency. “Over the years when I first started, very few breed associations did this; now they’re all doing this,” Basarab said. “Seed stock producers have already incorporated this into their breeding program. All of the beef producing countries in the world are looking at it very seriously. All they’re figuring out is how to include it into a multitrait selection program.” The chicken, dairy and pork sectors have already developed animals with better feed efficiency, he added. “They’ve blown our socks off.” Basarab estimates a five percent increase in feed efficiency would mean $100 million in savings, even if it were adopted by only 30 percent of cattle producers. He said rotational grazing, cross breeding, improved management and genetic selection have all improved efficiency in cattle. The next step is choosing cattle that eat less.
Page 1 and 2:
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2012 VOL. 90
Page 3 and 4:
“We expect that the U.S. will bri
Page 5 and 6:
COME SNOW OR RAIN | CANOLA | AGRONO
Page 7 and 8:
RIVER | TRANSPORTATION MARKETS THE
Page 9 and 10:
SOUTH AMERICA | CROP OUTLOOK Argent
Page 11 and 12:
& OPEN FORUM FOOD SAFETY | LOCAL VE
Page 13 and 14:
BAD MODEL To the Editor: In its rec
Page 15 and 16:
FEDERAL BUDGET | APPROVAL Changes t
Page 17 and 18:
NEWS THE WESTERN PRODUCER | WWW.PRO
Page 19 and 20:
POLY & FIBREGLASS TANKS ��
Page 21 and 22:
FARMLIVING FARM LIVING EDITOR: KARE
Page 23 and 24:
ON THE FARM | RANCHERS’ PLAN FARM
Page 25 and 26:
CHRISTMAS TRADITION | HOLY EVE MEAL
Page 27 and 28:
Jim Reiter Rosetown-Elrose 306 882-
Page 29 and 30:
PASTIMES | COLLECTING BY CHRISTALEE
Page 31 and 32:
What I really hate is when people d
Page 33 and 34:
David Suzuki talks to a farmer abou
Page 35 and 36:
6060 RR REALIZE YOUR YIELD POTENTIA
Page 37 and 38: CANADIAN WESTERN AGRIBITION | INTER
Page 39 and 40: HOGS | SUPPLY MANAGEMENT Supply man
Page 41 and 42: BY SEAN PRATT SASKATOON NEWSROOM Mi
Page 43 and 44: CANADIAN WESTERN AGRIBITION | CATTL
Page 45 and 46: NEWS THE WESTERN PRODUCER | WWW.PRO
Page 47 and 48: CLASSIFIED SALES | P: 800.667.7770
Page 49 and 50: THE WESTERN PRODUCER, THURSDAY, DEC
Page 63 and 64: SK-U0934 SK-U0640 2010 FORD F350 FX
Page 65 and 66: Fertilizer Tanks 10 Year limited wa
Page 67 and 68: THE WESTERN PRODUCER | WWW.PRODUCER
Page 69 and 70: COMBINES Saskatoon (306) 934-3555 8
Page 77 and 78: WHOA, BACK OFF THERE, MR. ED NEWS E
Page 79 and 80: ABOVE: Pastor Bill Harder of Camros
Page 81 and 82: BEEF | SLAUGHTER BY ROBERT ARNASON
Page 83 and 84: PRODUCTION PRODUCTION EDITOR: MICHA
Page 85 and 86: EQUIPMENT | SEEDING BY RON LYSENG W
Page 87: FARM POLICY | PARTICIPATION BY KARE
Page 91 and 92: LIVESTOCK THE WESTERN PRODUCER | WW
Page 93 and 94: MANAGING THE FARM ANDREW RAPHAEL Fa
Page 95 and 96: PONY PRIZE | Prince George Vancouve
show all

Download (PDF) - The Western Producer

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?