Rangeland Management News

After the Fire: The Need for Feed, Fence and Prayers

Mon, 23 Feb 2026 21:19:00 GMT

Wildfires plagued the Plains last week from southern Kansas into Oklahoma and Texas. Hundreds of thousands of acres of grass are now burned to sand.

The Ranger Road Fire, which started in Oklahoma and made its way into southern Kansas, to date has burned more than 283,000 acres and is 65% contained as of Monday morning, according to the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry .

The Oklahoma Forestry Services reports moderated fire weather over dormant fuels resulted in a downtick in wildfire activity over the weekend, allowing firefighters to improve the containment of recent large fires.

“Conditions also supported opportunity to execute burn plans for prescribed fires,” the report says. “If you engaged in prescribed burning, controlled burns or pile burns over the weekend, please ensure that fire perimeters are mopped up and secured ahead of increasing fire weather concerns Tuesday through the remainder of the week.”

Read more about how strong winds, above-average warmth and months of worsening dryness created a “perfect recipe”

for wildfires across the Southern Plains, scorching pasture and farmland — with little moisture relief in the forecast:

Why the Southern Plains Became a ‘Perfect Recipe’ for Wildfire

The wildfires have left a path of heartbreak and devastation. From the loss of livestock and homes, barns and shops to pastures and fence, the damage is hard to fathom.

Oklahoma Secretary of Agriculture Blayne Arthur visited Oklahoma producers impacted by the wildfires on Thursday. “Please pray for our farmers and ranchers and our first responders who continue to battle challenging fires and weather,” she says.

1 of 3:

Secretary of Agriculture Blayne Arthur

2 of 3:

Secretary of Agriculture Blayne Arthur

3 of 3:

Secretary of Agriculture Blayne Arthur

Dr. Randall Spare, Ashland Veterinary Center Inc., says nine years after the losses resulting from the Starbuck Wildfire — still the largest, most extensive wildfire in Kansas history — many of the same ranchers have been affected by the Ranger Road Fire.

Spare explains the wildfire was unstoppable with little farmland or breaks to get ahead of the fire plus the extreme wind. The fire started near Beaver, Okla., at 11 a.m., and he reports many ranchers in the path were moving cattle by noon. He says the highest losses occurred where there were no nearby wheat fields or safe pasture alternatives for the cattle.

“When you have contiguous grass for 90 miles, and the fire line was 90 miles long, from Beaver, Okla. to Protection, Kan., and it was moving 70 miles an hour, it’s hard to get in front of it,” he says.

He also explains because of the good moisture in 2025 and good stewardship of the land, there was a lot of tall, dense forage to fuel the fire.

“Many of the best stewards — those who don’t overgraze and stockpile grass for calving and drought management — actually experienced some of the worst damage,” he explains. “Because they’ve done a good job of managing their grass and have forage to eat in the spring of the year before the growing season starts to calve on, they experienced some of the greatest damage.”

Spare says the Ranger Road Fire took the same path as the Starbuck Fire, but it did not burn as many acres in Kansas — about one-third less in comparison.

“The good thing is it did not go north of Ashland. It’s five miles south of Ashland before it starts and not near the acreage burned,” he summarizes. “Since it isn’t like the Starbuck Fire, we have an opportunity as neighbors to help neighbors, whereas before we couldn’t do that because we were all affected.”

He predicts producers in Kansas lost 1,000 to 1,100 head. He adds there will continue to be more loss as producers evaluate cattle condition.

“One of the biggest damage is feet,” he explains. “The walls of their hooves start to fall off due to the fire. And sometimes that doesn’t show up for five days.”

How Can You Help?

According to Reuters , other fires have burned thousands more acres in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas.

In agriculture, community is strong. When one producer hurts we all feel it and, if possible, we step up and help our neighbors in need. Along with prayers, Spare adds the immediate needs are:

Hay
Money (financial support)

In response to producers offering help, Spare shares a list of ways others can support ranchers recovering from the wildfires on social media, including lessons learned from the Starbuck Fire.

“I would like to share what we learned from the Starbuck Fire that, hopefully, will be helpful as you consider making decisions about how to help,” he writes.

Fencing supplies: “After the Starbuck Fire, we learned that if federal funds are used to rebuild and replace fences, the construction requirements to access those funds are very specific regarding type of wire, posts, etc. While the generosity of those giving nine years ago was remarkable, we were limited in how much of the donated resources actually could be used simply because federal loss recovery funds needed to be used, and the donated fencing supplies didn’t meet government specifications.”
Money: “Today, money is the most precious resource and in the greatest need. Many of the ranching operations affected need time to truly assess their losses. Some are finding cattle they first thought to be lost, alive and safe. Others are experiencing the opposite and unfortunately are seeing the losses increase.”
Available pasture and grassland: “If you have pasture available either short term or long term, please reach out to Ashland Community Foundation, Kansas Livestock Association or Ashland Veterinary Center,” he suggests.
Hay: There are designated drop off locations ready to accept loads of hay.

Multiple organizations have stepped up and are organizing supplies and assistance.

• Kansas Livestock Association. KLA is helping connect those wishing to donate with the most suitable drop location. If you’re hoping to donate goods including livestock feed or hay, you can contact KLA at (785) 273-5115, or visit this website . On KLA’s Facebook page you can find posts from feedlots that are offering pen space to wildfire victims.

• The Ashland Community Foundation. ACF is accepting monetary donations to help those affected by the fires in their community. To donate, please visit the ACF website and select “Become A Partner” in the dropdown. Donations are also being accepted at Stockgrowers State Bank or can be mailed to ACF at P.O. Box 276, Ashland, KS 67831.

• Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Foundation. OCF has established a relief fund to help cattle producers who have been affected. As the 501(c)(3) charitable arm of the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association, the fire relief fund at the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Foundation will distribute 100% of received funds to affected cattle producers. You can give online or make checks payable to Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Foundation with “Fire Relief” in the memo line and mail to P.O. Box 82395, Oklahoma City, OK 73148.

• Beaver County Stockyards and Beaver County OSU Extension office. For those willing to donate feed or hay to the Beaver County, Okla., area, visit the Stockyards website or the Extension office website .

• Beaneighbor.org . The Oklahoma Healthcare Authority, provides access to local support including financial assistance, food pantries, medical care, and other free or reduced-cost help. Search for aid in your area at Beaneighbor.org.

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry reminds the public to use caution before bringing hay to northwest Oklahoma to prevent the spread of invasive fire ants. Find out if your county is under quarantine for fire ants on the USDA website

Fire Weather is Not Over: Stay Prepared

The Kansas Forest Service reminds producers there are still months of fire season to come.

“As firefighters continue to mop up or extinguish hot spots along miles of fire line, recovery begins for the communities most impacted by recent wildfires,” the agency says. “Many wildfire managers are already preparing for the next round of fire weather.”

While recovery and readiness are happening at the same time, the forest service share these two tips:

Learn how to prepare your home and property for a wildfire. Proper preparation can help your home withstand a wildfire.
Have a plan when the wildfire is heading toward your home or property.

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension has a Fires & Wildfires website dedicated to providing resources to help prepare for and survive wildfires.

A Note to Survivors

Spare says his message to producers who are recovering from the wildfires is to:

Think beyond today. Plan not only for immediate survival but for summer grazing and next winter’s feed. Recognize that hay now is also about having feed later, since grass is gone.
Don’t be afraid to ask for help. “If you are struggling, reach out to a trusted friend and accept neighbor and outside assistance,” he stresses.

Spare summarizes producers from his area are deeply appreciative and humbled by people from across the country who helped nine years ago and are helping again now, even to the point that local folks feel “almost embarrassed” it happened again.

“But it is life, and we’re going to trust God and go on,” he says.

Your Next Read: Tips for Care Following Wildfire

When Cattle Don't Roam: Uncovering Tick Refuges with GPS, GIS and Modeling

Mon, 08 Dec 2025 20:00:46 GMT

Cattle fever ticks persist in South Texas not because eradication efforts have failed everywhere, but because, in some places, cattle never go at all. New research from Texas A&M combining GPS collar data, habitat mapping and individual-based simulation models shows areas rarely visited by treated cattle can function as ecological refuges for ticks, allowing populations to survive long enough to reinfest herds.

For more than a century, eradication programs targeting Rhipicephalus microplus have relied on a straightforward premise: treat cattle, interrupt the tick life cycle, and the population collapses. That approach nearly succeeded nationwide by the mid-20^th century, protecting the U.S. cattle industry from bovine babesiosis, a disease transmitted by the tick. However, in South Texas, particularly at the wildlife-livestock interface, ticks continue to persist despite regular treatment programs.

According to a pair of recent studies from Texas A&M AgriLife researchers, the missing piece might not be chemical efficacy or compliance, but behavior. Specifically, where cattle choose not to roam.

What GPS Tracking Reveals About Cattle Behavior

In the first study , cattle were outfitted with GPS collars to record fine-scale movement across the Texas coastal landscape known to harbor cattle fever ticks. Over extended periods, the researchers tracked when and where animals grazed, rested and avoided, generating a high-resolution picture of habitat use across seasons.

The results revealed that cattle did not use the landscape evenly. Instead, grazing and movement was clustered in specific habitat types while large portions of the pasture, particularly dense brush and shrub-dominated areas favorable to tick survival, remained consistently underused. Seasonal heat stress further amplified this pattern, shifting cattle away from certain habitats for prolonged periods.

These underused areas represent more than idle land. From a tick’s perspective, they are zones where pesticide exposure is low or nonexistent. Even when cattle on the ranch are treated, ticks located in places cattle rarely enter might escape control entirely.

By overlaying GPS movement data with geographic information system (GIS) habitat classifications, researchers were able to spatially define where these behavioral gaps occurred, effectively mapping where cattle presence, and therefore tick control pressure, was weakest.

The Role of Cattle Behavior Models for Predicting Tick Persistence

In the second study , researchers moved from observation to prediction. Using the acquired GPS-derived habitat use data, they built a specially explicit, individual based simulation model to explore how tick populations respond to different host and treatment scenarios.

Unlike traditional models that assume uniform host movement, this framework explicitly incorporates cattle behavior, including their avoidance of specific habitat types, alongside tick life history, habitat suitability and the presence of wildlife hosts, such as white-tailed deer and nilgai.

The simulations tested multiple scenarios: cattle-only systems, mixed wildlife-cattle systems, different pesticide treatment strategies and varying habitat use patterns. Across scenarios, a consistent result emerged. When cattle alone were treated, the standard eradication approach, tick populations frequently persisted in landscapes where cattle avoided substantial portions of tick-suitable habitat.

These persistence zones functioned as refugia: small but stable patches where ticks could survive, reproduce and later recolonize treatment areas. Importantly, the model showed eradication success was strongly influenced not just by those species, but by where hosts traveled across the landscape. Assuming homogeneous grazing behavior significantly overestimated the likelihood of tick elimination.

Why Cattle-Only Tick Control Fails: The Impact of Wildlife and Refugia

The presence of wildlife further compounded the problem. In simulated landscapes shared with deer or nilgai, ticks could cycle through hosts that moved freely through refugia, bypassing treating cattle altogether. Even low densities of wildlife were sufficient to sustain tick populations in favorable habitat patches, especially when cattle presence was inconsistent.

The modeling suggests eradication efforts falter not because ticks are ubiquitous, but because they are spatially selective. They exploit ecological and behavioral gaps. These gaps persist unless control strategies account for where cattle do not go.

Crucially, this research showed changes in grazing behavior, such as increasing cattle access to underused habitats, could substantially reduce tick persistence in simulation. Likewise, scenarios that incorporated treatment or management of wildlife hosts dramatically improved eradication outcomes.

A Spatial Approach to Tick Eradication

Together, the two studies argue for a reframing of tick eradication as a spatial and behavioral challenge rather than a purely chemical one. The failure to eliminate cattle fever ticks in Texas might stem less from insufficient treatment and more from incomplete coverage driven by cattle movement patterns.

This insight has immediate implications. Mapping cattle behavior using GPS data allows managers to identify where control pressure is weakest and to target interventions accordingly. This could be through adjusted grazing plans, focused surveillance, habitat modification or strategic wildlife management.

It all underscores the value of location intelligence in veterinary epidemiology. By integrating GPS tracking, GIS habitat data and individual based modeling, researchers can move beyond reactive control toward predictive, landscape-level strategies that anticipate where persistence is most likely. This reframes eradication not as a question of how much treatment is applied but of whether interventions reach the places cattle do not.

A Deworming Plan that Delivers

Wed, 10 Sep 2025 18:38:02 GMT

For Oklahoma producer Buck Rich and his veterinarian, Dr. Tyler Thomas, parasite control isn’t about doing more. It’s about doing it better.

Together, they’ve fine-tuned a simple, practical approach to parasite control that helps Rich’s herd stay healthy and productive all year long. Their success comes down to four practices that any producer can adopt: diagnostics, combination treatment, refugia and management.

Oklahoma producer Buck Rich (left) and veterinarian Dr. Tyler Thomas, owner of Prague Veterinary Clinic.

(Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc.)

Diagnostics: Start With the Facts

When Rich notices cattle underperforming, his first move isn’t to reach for more product — it’s to collect a fecal sample.

“You don’t know where to go until you know where you’re at,” explains Thomas, a mixed animal practitioner and owner of Prague Veterinary Clinic in Prague, Okla. “Diagnostics tell us if treatment is even necessary, and whether what we’ve done is working.”

Rich’s operation, Leaning Oak Ranch in Okemah, Okla., includes 2,000 pairs. Like many cow-calf operations, it’s heavily forage-based and parasite control plays a key role in performance.

“We had a group of cows that didn’t look right, and I assumed it was a worm issue,” Rich says. “But fecals came back clean. Diagnostics saved us from reworking the cows unnecessarily.”

That kind of clarity is why conducting fecal egg counts, before and after deworming, is a regular part of their plan.

“Without diagnostics, it’s easy to point the finger at the product,” adds Dr. Jody Wade, DVM, Boehringer Ingelheim. “But if you’re not testing, you might be treating the wrong issue or not seeing the whole picture.”

Combination Treatment: Target Parasites in Different Ways

Combination treatment is the practice of deworming cattle by using two or more dewormers from different drug classes. Dewormers can be divided into three different classes, based on their chemical structure and mechanism of action: macrocyclic lactones (endectocides), benzimidazoles (white dewormers) and imidazothiazoles. Each class controls a distinct spectrum of parasites, and for a different amount of time (see Figure 1).

For Rich and Thomas, implementing combination treatment was a game changer.

“We used to rotate products,” Rich recalls. “Now we use a white dewormer and a macrocyclic lactone at the same time. The cattle slick off faster and just look better.”

Figure 1: The three classes of dewormers.

(Boehringer Indelheim)

“Most operations already use a macrocyclic lactone,” Thomas explains. “Adding a white dewormer targets parasites differently. You get more coverage and it’s economical.”

Dr. Matt Washburn, DVM, Boehringer Ingelheim, says combination treatment is one of the most effective ways to slow resistance, while improving outcomes.

“Each class kills different parasites in different ways,” he points out. “When you use a combination of products, you clean up more effectively and reduce the risk of survivors.”

Refugia: Treat the Right Animals

It may go against tradition, but Rich and Thomas agree: Sometimes, the best choice is to skip the deworming treatment. This practice, known as refugia, leaves a portion of the herd untreated to maintain a population of susceptible parasites, helping dilute resistance across the herd.

“We’re wired to treat everything,” Rich says. “But when we’ve held back a few, like Dr. Thomas recommends, it’s worked, and we’re not wasting product.”

Wade notes that skipping treatment isn’t about doing less; it’s about doing what’s right.

“The days of treating everything, every time, are behind us,” he emphasizes. “Refugia takes discipline, but it gives us longevity. It protects the products we have.”

Buck Rich (left) and Dr. Tyler Thomas processing cattle.

(Boehringer Ingelheim)

Management: Strong Grazing Supports Stronger Control

Rich is quick to explain that success doesn’t just come from products; it’s also about how grazing is managed.

“We’re not extreme rotators, but we do move cattle regularly,” he says. “We try to leave about half the grass behind each time. It helps the pasture bounce back faster, and keeps parasite pressure lower.”

Thomas adds that forage height matters.

“Most infective larvae live in the bottom two inches of pasture,” he says. “If cattle graze above that, they’re exposed to fewer parasites. And it’s better for regrowth and soil health, too.”

Washburn agrees and adds, “Overgrazing doesn’t just hurt your grass. It increases parasite exposure and slows pasture recovery. Management is a pillar of deworming, just as much as the product in your chute.”

Planning that Pays

For Rich and Thomas, deworming isn’t a stand-alone decision; It’s part of a year-round plan. And that plan flexes with the season, the weather and the cattle in front of them.

“Herd health protocols aren’t static,” Thomas says. “If Buck’s going to keep calves for 10 months, we make a different plan than if they’re leaving in 60 days. It’s about making the product fit the goal, not the other way around.”

Rich’s partnership with Thomas helps him stay ahead of parasite pressure, while reducing unnecessary costs.

“I know I can call Dr. Thomas any time,” Rich stresses. “He understands our operation and helps me make decisions that actually fit what we’re doing. Working with my vet makes all the difference.”

That tailored approach is one reason Leaning Oak Ranch continues to see results year after year.

“It’s about using the tools we have wisely,” Washburn says. “When you put diagnostics, combination treatment, refugia and management together, you’re building something more sustainable — and profitable.”

For Rich, the proof is in the cattle and the next generation.

“This is a family operation. My kids are growing up on this ranch,” he concludes. “I want our cattle to look good now, but I also want this to work 10, 20 years from now. That’s why we do it this way.”

To explore strategies like the ones Rich and Thomas use visit DewormingLegends.com .

Beef Producers Be Aware: Dangerous Asian Longhorned Tick Continues Migrating West

Wed, 18 Jun 2025 13:24:33 GMT

The Asian Longhorned Tick (ALHT) poses a serious threat to cattle health. ALHTs carry Theileria, which is a protozoan parasite that infects red and white blood cells. It can lead to anemia and, in some cases, death.

ALHTs are native to eastern Asia, eastern China, Japan, the Russian Far East and Korea but were introduced to Australia, New Zealand and western Pacific Islands. In other countries, it can also be called a bush tick, cattle tick or scrub tick.

In the U.S., ALHT was first detected in New Jersey in 2017. Since then, it has spread to more than 20 states with recent confirmations in Illinois , Michigan and Iowa .

According to USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) ALHTs are known to carry pathogens, which can cause disease and may also cause distress to the host from their feeding in large numbers. For example, a dairy cow may have a 25% decrease in milk production after becoming a host.

A female can reproduce without a mate and lay up to 2,000 eggs at a time. This can cause great stress on a heavily infested animal and result in reduced growth and production. A severe infestation can kill the animal from excessive blood loss.

Asian longhorned tick life stages and relative actual size.

(Photos of unfed ticks by Centers for Disease Control. Photos of engorged ticks by Jim Occi, Rutgers, Center for Vector Biology.)

What does it look like?

Unfed ALHTs range from a light reddish-tan to a dark red with brown, dark markings. While the adult female grows to the size of a pea when full of blood, other stages of the tick are very small — about the size of a sesame seed.

Adult females are a grey-green with yellowish markings. Male ticks are rare.

APHIS reports it only takes a single tick to create a population in a new location.

The above photos are of a AHLT engorged (on the left) and an adult AHLT not engorged.

(New Jersey Department of Agriculture)

ALHTs need warm-blooded hosts to feed and survive. They have been found on various species of domestic animals — such as sheep, goats, dogs, cats, horses, cattle and chickens — and wildlife. The tick has also been found on people.

What are the health risks?

APHIS says ALHTs are not known to carry Lyme disease, but they can cause tickborne diseases affecting humans and animals such as:

Rocky Mountain spotted fever
Heartland virus
Powassan virus

APHIS says those diseases have not been confirmed outside of a laboratory setting in the U.S. In addition, U.S. ALHT populations can transmit U.S. Theileria orientalis Ikeda strain (Cattle theileriosis) in the laboratory.

In an Iowa State University release , Grant Dewell, Extension beef veterinarian and associate professor, says cattle affected by Theileriosis will show signs of lethargy, anemia and difficulty breathing. They may develop ventral edema, exercise intolerance, jaundice and abortions.

“Although signs of Theileriosis are similar to anaplasmosis, younger animals and calves often display more severe signs compared to mature cows and bulls,” he says. “Due to anemia from both tick infestation and Theileria, the risk of death can be elevated. If cattle producers suspect either Theileria or ALHT, have a veterinarian collect appropriate samples and submit them to a veterinary diagnostic lab.”

According to an Oklahoma State University press release , under laboratory conditions ALHT is a competent vector of numerous pathogens that can cause disease in humans, including Rickettsia rickettsii (Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever), Heartland Virus and Powassan Virus.

In “ Clinical Infectious Diseases, ” Bobbi Pritt, MD, MSC, with the division of clinical microbiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., reported a human bite that occurred in New York in 2019. She says though the report of a human bite isn’t surprising, it proves the invasive longhorned tick continues to bite hosts in its newest location.

“This is extremely worrisome for several reasons,” she writes. “One reason is Asian longhorned ticks can carry several important human pathogens, including the potentially fatal severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) virus and Rickettsia japonica, which cases Japanese spotted fever. While these pathogens have yet to be found in the United States, there is a risk of their future introduction.”

Also, Pritt says several other human pathogens have been detected in the ticks, but it’s not clear if the ALHT species are able to transmit them to humans. They include Anaplasma, Ehrlichia, Rickettsia, and Borrelia species. Lyme disease is caused by Borrelia burgdorferi bacteria.

She warns the organisms are present in states where ALHTs have been found and that it’s possible the tick — known to be an aggressive biter— might be able to transmit Heartland virus given its close relationship to SFTS virus.

How to Tackle Ticks

According to APHIS, various strategies effectively mitigate tick populations on hosts and in the environment.

Regular tick treatments should be effective against ALHTs. Consult your veterinarian or agriculture extension agent about which products to use.
Check your livestock for ticks regularly.
Safely remove ticks from people and pets as quickly as possible. If you think you’ve found an ALHT, seal it in a zip-top bag and give it to your veterinarian for identification.
Habitat modifications can help prevent ticks on feedlots and pastures. This may include mowing grass, removing trees, reducing shade by thinning trees, understory removal and placing mulch barriers.
Apply acaricide using label instructions to tick habitats, such as woodland edges and grassy patches, during times when ticks are most actively seeking hosts. Although it varies by year, ALHTs are generally active from March to November. Consult your state and local regulations for approved acaricides.

“Cattle producers should aggressively control external parasites this summer,” Dewell summarizes. “Insecticide ear tags alone are not enough to control ticks. Consider incorporating a back rubber or regularly applying a pour-on during the summer. Pyrethroid-based products are also available that include a tick control label. If an increase in tick infestations is observed, an avermectin pour-on may be the best intervention.”

Your Next Read: 1,500-lb. Carcasses the New Normal, Not the Exception

New World Screwworm is Moving Toward the U.S.

Wed, 08 Jan 2025 20:00:05 GMT

By Kathy Simmons, DVM, Chief Veterinarian, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

The U.S. cattle industry has not faced the threat of New World screwworm (NWS) for over 60 years. Currently, the NWS fly, about the size of a common housefly, has migrated across Central America from Panama and entered Mexico.

Live cattle trade to the U.S. from Mexico was halted on Nov. 22, 2024, after a cow in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas was found to have NWS myiasis. Live cattle trade with Mexico will only resume with established NWS mitigation protocols, the holding of Mexican cattle for preventive treatments, and multiple inspections of Mexican cattle on both sides of the border.

At the time of this article, NWS has not been found in the U.S., but this harmful pest can travel on humans, vehicles, pets, livestock and even on some wildlife species — all of which increase the likelihood it could eventually enter our country.

What is NWS Myiasis?

NWS myiasis is the infestation of NWS larvae or maggots that feed on the living tissues of all warm-blooded animals, including humans, and rarely birds. Adult female flies lay their eggs, often as many as 200 to 300 eggs at a time, at the edges of wounds on animals or at the mucous membranes or body orifices. Within 12 to 24 hours the eggs will hatch, and larvae emerge to feed on living flesh by burrowing into tissue, tearing at the tissue with their hook-like mouthparts, like a screw being driven into wood and hence, their name.

The larvae can be difficult to detect for the first 24 to 48 hours, but as larvae feed on tissue, the wound enlarges and drains a serosanguineous fluid. There is severe inflammation and secondary infection as well as the stench of necrotic tissue.

Screwworm larvae pass through three stages (or instars), and they will reach maturity about five to seven days after the eggs hatch. At maturity, the larvae stop feeding and fall to the ground where they burrow and pupate to become adult flies. Adult flies live for two to three weeks in the field. Females mate only once in their lifetime.

Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention of NWS Myiasis

Laboratory diagnosis of NWS is usually made by identification of the parasites under the microscope. NWS is a foreign animal disease that is reportable to state animal health authorities and to USDA-APHIS. The U.S. is responsible for reporting NWS to the World Organization for Animal Health and to our trading partners.

Before collecting or sending any samples from animals with a foreign animal disease, the proper authorities should be contacted. Samples should only be sent under secure conditions and to authorized laboratories. NWS can infest humans, so samples should be collected and handled with proper precautions. Larvae should be removed from the wound prior to treatment and placed in 80% ethanol for transport to the lab. Formalin should not be used.

Treatment for NWS myiasis generally includes cleaning and debriding the wounds and applying organophosphate insecticides, which are effective against newly hatched larvae, immature forms and adult flies. Carbamates and pyrethroids are also effective against larvae. Antibiotics are indicated if an infection is present. Livestock can also be protected by regular spraying or dipping with insecticides, or by subcutaneous injections of ivermectin and related compounds.

In endemic areas, animals must be inspected for screwworms every few days. NWS myiasis is often fatal in untreated cattle within 14 days.

Whenever possible, procedures that leave wounds (castration, dehorning, branding, ear tagging) should not be performed during screwworm season, and sharp objects should be removed from livestock pens. No vaccine is currently available for NWS.

Eradication from a Region

Screwworms can be managed by repeatedly releasing sterile male flies that mate with wild NWS female flies to produce unfertilized eggs. This process is called sterile insect technique and leads to a reduction in screwworm numbers and eventual eradication.

In addition, infested animals in a region are treated and their movements are controlled. Currently, the U.S. and Panama operate an NWS sterile male fly production facility in Pacora, Panama, through the Panama-U.S. Commission for the Eradication and Prevention of Screwworm, or COPEG, which produces 100 million sterile male flies per week.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is committed to informing cattle producers and their veterinarians about current animal health risks and advocating for cattle health issues in Washington, D.C., on behalf of the U.S. cattle industry.

Click here for more resources.

More information on Bovine Veterinarian:
Protecting the Herd from New World Screwworm

Three States Undertake Joint Project to Prepare for Foreign Animal Diseases that Could Impact U.S.

Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:32:47 GMT

This article was written by Francesca Lear.

Foot-and-mouth disease is a severe and fast-spreading viral disease that can affect all cloven-hoofed animals.

The disease was discovered in the U.S. in 1870 but was eradicated in 1929, according to the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The disease is present in nearly 70% of cloven-hoofed animals worldwide., but it hasn’t made a return to the U.S. — yet.

Three States Involved

The goal of a new project led by Oregon State University Extension Service is to create a fast-acting information network among Cooperative Extension livestock specialists and veterinarians in the departments of agriculture in three western states — Oregon, California and Idaho — to prepare for foreign diseases such as foot-and-mouth.

Sergio Arispe, OSU Extension livestock and rangeland field faculty in Malheur County and associate professor in the College of Agricultural Sciences, has been awarded nearly $75,000 to work on the project.

The grant, provided through the Western Extension Risk Management Education Center through USDA’s National Institute for Food and Agriculture, comes at a good time, Arispe states, considering the recent development of highly pathogenic avian influenza crossing over into the nation’s dairy cattle population.

The project aims to mitigate profit, production and financial risk to cattle producers in the case of a foreign transmitted animal disease, such as foot-and-mouth, by collaborating with state veterinarians and Beef Quality Assurance coordinators and trainers to increase trainings and certifications.

The goal is to reach at least 500 cattle producers across the three states, Arispe says.

‘Train The Trainer’

The Beef Quality Assurance program, developed by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, is meant to promote safe and wholesome beef. Major beef packing plants require best practices, taught through the Beef Quality Assurance curriculum, to inherently mitigate risks and maximize profits for cattle producers.

The project is using a “train the trainer” model for Cooperative Extension employees who can further broadcast the information through their networks to cattle producers before a potential outbreak.

The trainings will include presentations and updates to the current Beef Quality Assurance curriculum. The trained Cooperative Extension agents from these workshops will go on to present at state cattlemen’s association meetings and work locally with producers.

“The Extension personnel in these three states then go out and amplify that message, through Extension publications, workshops and presentations to cattle producers,” Arispe says. “The local agents have more trust in the community, and they have more contacts.”

He says increasing the dissemination of information will help cattle producers be prepared for a foreign animal disease outbreak.

Mitigate Risks

“Foot-and-mouth disease is the most transmissible disease to all cloven-hoofed animals worldwide,” Arispe says. “Our efforts would be the same for trying to mitigate production risk, market risk and financial risk for foot-and-mouth disease, but it could be for any foreign animal disease that may come. The same approach and the same measures would be appropriate.”

He adds, “So the question at hand is: If there was a foreign animal disease that came to the U.S. like foot-and-mouth disease what would that process look like for cattle producers, and what would happen to transport?”

A key aspect to this project is educating producers on the local, state and national protocols if there is a foreign disease, he says.

“At any given time there are about 3 million animals on our highways, or in our planes or boats,” Arispe says. “There will be at least a 72-hour national standstill declared by the USDA for all cloven-hoofed animals if foot-and-mouth disease is ever found in the U.S. A lot of producers don’t know that, and that’s only the beginning.”

Biosecurity Plans

The team will also be available to work with producers to create an enhanced biosecurity plan, which can clear them for transportation in the event they are in a high-risk area of a foreign disease.

This would prevent some of the financial issues a producer would incur if they were unable to transport their livestock offsite.

“Our efforts aim to have enhanced biosecurity plans complete for least 20% of the confined cattle population within each state,” Arispe says.

“This project aims to provide a basic overview and proactive activities and measures that people can take to mitigate production market and financial risks, and the process by which cattle producers can resume business,” he adds.

Those who are interested in learning more about the Cooperative Extension Secure Beef Supply programming in their state can contact: Arispe , Dr. Gabriele Maier and Dr. Lais Costa in California and Meranda Small or Mireille Chahine.

Elanco Advances A Four-Pillar Livestock Sustainability Strategy

Turn Up the Heat on Winter Calf Water

Adapting to Virtual Fencing

Thu, 12 Sep 2024 15:42:18 GMT

As summer sets in, so does the routine of checking pasture fencing. Driving through cattle turned out on pasture usually entails some combination of looking at the water, counting cattle, watching for watery eyes, and checking fences. If the headcount is right, some will bypass the perimeter check assuming the weather hasn’t caused a rogue tree limb to raise concern. For those dependent on electric fences, a quick confirmation the energizer is maintaining the expected “charge” may also save running the whole fence.

There are several factors influencing the need to check fences regardless of type. The first is pasture availability, and the second is likely the cattle’s familiarity with the perimeter. This month, we look at cattle’s ability to adapt to virtual fencing as an alternative to permanent or electric fence perimeters.

Virtual fencing occurs in several ways and will vary by manufacturer. The systems use a GPS derived perimeter and cattle are fitted with battery or solar powered devices that communicate with the perimeter and provide audible warnings and electrical stimulation in the event audible warnings are not sufficient. Three Journal of Animal Science articles highlighted cattle’s ability to learn and adapt to the system while evaluating any related welfare issues.

The first time cattle are turned out in any new pasture they explore the perimeter and test the fences regardless of type—this is true of virtual fences as well. During the virtual fence training period, cattle required 7.9 paired (audible and electrical) stimulations to identify the perimeter boundary. As one might expect during the training period, the number of electrical cues cattle receive is higher than later in the grazing period. For cattle new to virtual fencing systems two principles are being learned: Audible signals indicate the perimeter is near and failure to respond to those audible signals results in an electrical correction.

This is not unlike a traditional electric fence training. Cattle unfamiliar with electric fences commonly test the boundaries and learn the consequences of “trying” the fencing. Once cattle learn the visual cue associated with a hot wire, most producers can get by for a few days even if the energizer fails due to the visual cue of the hot wire.

As the grazing period progressed, the ratio of audible to electrical signals increased, suggesting the cattle were learning to use the sounds to define the grazing boundaries. In these experiments not only was the perimeter effective at containing the cattle but the distribution of grazing was not different for electrical compared to virtual fencing. This suggests that regardless of visual or audible cues cattle stay about the same distance away from the fence on average.

Another hypothesis tested in these experiments was that cow age would influence the rate of adaptation to virtual fencing. I will let you decide whether young or old cows were expected to learn faster. Results suggest that while there was individual cow variation in adaptation rate to virtual fencing systems, age was not a significant factor in these individual animal differences. Young and older cows learned at comparable rates. In both age groups as the grazing period increased the number of electrical cues also declined. The authors indicated a cow’s ability to adapt to alternative fencing systems should not be influenced by age.

In addition to virtual fencing adaptation, cows were monitored for productivity and stress. Activity, lying behavior, milk production, body weight, and milk cortisol levels (stress measure) did not differ due to fencing method. The cow’s ability to learn cues and identify virtual boundaries suggest the stress of virtual fencing is not different from traditional fencing models. Uniform grazing distribution relative to the boundaries is key to ensuring ability to graze forage, gain weight and produce milk similar to cows in traditional fencing systems.

Virtual fencing is not likely to replace permanent perimeter fencing due to a host of risks related to cattle not responding to cues or respecting boundaries. However, the ability to use virtual fencing within an operations permanent boundary to expand grazing areas or implement managed grazing systems with reduced labor and less permanent or temporary infrastructure continues to show promise. As you find yourself repairing fence this summer, consider the possibility of checking and moving cattle using a virtual option.

For additional reading on virtual fencing:
Colorado Rancher Uses Grant Money for Virtual Fencing
Unleashing the Benefits of Virtual Fencing for Beef Producers

Oregon Ranchers Are Continuing to Battle Grueling Wildfires as Financial Losses Mount

Wed, 07 Aug 2024 18:10:08 GMT

As of Friday, more than 1.1 million acres has burned in Oregon. Lightning continues to spark new fires and with the flames still not under control, it will go down as one of the most devastating wildfire fires in the state’s history.

Clint Sexson ranches in eastern Oregon. He says between cattle lost and grazing areas burned, it’s been a grueling summer. The exact livestock losses are unknown at this time.

“I don’t even want to speculate,” Sexson says. “I mean, the one that’s pretty public is that the 300 head in the Durkee Fire that were lost,” Sexson says. “I know one producer who has lost probably hundreds.”

That particular fire, the Durkee Fire, has been a monster. At 86% contained, it’s already scorched 295,000 acres.

Plenty of Fuel for Fires

Just this week, lightning sparked more fires. Sexson says the reason the fires have been so bad is the amount of grass available to fuel the fires.

“There’s more fuel on the ground,” Sexson says. “Some of these areas have burned before. There hasn’t necessarily been a clean up after a burn, so there’s just a lot of fuel.”

A Devastating Loss of Grass to Graze

The livestock losses are heartbreaking and severe, but the amount of grass burned is causing concern in the state. As the fires rage, the losses of valuable grazing ground are mounting, which impacts livestock producers across the state.

“This part of the world is different,” Sexson says. “A lot of people don’t feed cows, but maybe 30, 60 days a year. The rest of the year, we are grazing cattle. It’s a budgetary thing and a management thing that they will have to work through. Emotionally, it’s tough on those people, especially those generational ranches.”

Sexson was fortunate. On July 20, as the fires raged and closed in on his land, he was able to get cattle out thanks to fellow ranchers who showed up with trucks and trailers.

“I work for Select Sires and every one of those trucks that showed up, they were all customers,” he says, as his voice cracks and tears fill his eyes. “We got the cattle out and right back to a customer’s feedlot. They were ready for them, and we were pretty fortunate.”

An Emotional Sale of Support

That emotion was felt late last week as Superior Livestock Auction sold special benefit lots as part of their video sale in Winnemucca, Nev. This was an example of ranchers helping ranchers. That money went to the Oregon Fire Relief Fund, which will help those producers in need.

“These are primarily purebred breeders who have made donations in sale credit or semen credit,” Sexson says. “They’re not directly focused on their customers alone. They’re just focused on the general beef industry in Oregon and the devastation some of these people are dealing with. I know two or three people who had their entire ranches burned by the fires. They may not have lost a cow, but it burnt all their private grazing ground.”

The special sale was a touching gesture, as the ranching community comes together at a time of need and the fires continue to burn. Emotions are high, losses are mounting and cattle producers impacted are feeling the financial pain.

Research Shows Benefits of Grazing Livestock in Sagebrush Environments

Wed, 07 Aug 2024 12:59:31 GMT

While a cow grazing in a field isn’t typically remarkable, United States Department of Agriculture scientists have identified potential ecological benefits of strategically applied livestock grazing in sagebrush communities across U.S. western rangelands.

As recently published in the scientific journal Ecosphere , the collaborative research effort among Agricultural Research Service (ARS) rangeland scientists at Burns, Ore., and Fort Collins, Colo., challenged the outdated dogma that livestock grazing in the sagebrush steppe always negatively impacts these ecosystems and, in fact, can convey desirable outcomes, particularly in regard to limiting both wildfire risk and invasive annual grasses.

In addressing these ecological challenges, ARS scientists discovered that strategically applying livestock grazing prior to the occurrence of climate-induced wildfires can modify sagebrush steppe characteristics in ways that decrease fire probability and severity in the communities, promote biodiversity while reducing postfire annual grass invasion, fire-induced loss of native bunchgrasses, and fire damage to soil biocrusts, the collection of bacteria, fungi and mosses on the soil surface.

The ARS team compared moderately grazed and ungrazed sagebrush steppe and observed the grazing induced shorter flame lengths, slower rates of fire spread, and smaller burning fronts.

Similarly, strategic grazing in annual grass-dominated rangelands reduced flame length and rate of spread — modifications that resulted in safer and more effective fire suppression. Still another benefit of modified fire characteristics, the scientists reported, is a decrease in the area burned and overall mosaic of burned and unburned patches.

Grazing by non-native livestock such as sheep, cattle and horses dates back to the mid-to-late 1800s by Europeans, these early practices were not ecologically sustainable and led to widespread overuse and degradation to include loss of perennial grasses and forbs, reduced biodiversity, erosion, overabundant unpalatable species, and non-native plant invasions.

“There were concerns about the negative consequences of non-native livestock grazing in sagebrush communities, especially since these communities are experiencing unpreceded threats from invasive annual grasses, altered fire regimes, and climate change,” said Kirk Davies, ARS rangeland scientist. “But strategically applied grazing can spur desirable social-ecological outcomes such as reduced non-native annual grass invasion, decreased wildfire probability and spread, reduced fire suppression cost, and prevent undesirable ecological transformation post-fire.”

Davies’ findings also indicated that grazing can modify competitive relationships in introduced bunchgrass seeding to favor native species recruitment. This can be particularly valuable for reestablishing sagebrush, a critical shrub for many native wildlife species.

With careful attention to the timing, duration, frequency, and intensity of use needed to meet vegetation objectives, strategic grazing has the potential to reduce the detrimental impacts of invasive annual grasses, promote native species in introduced grasslands, and encourage native shrub recovery.

“Recognizing livestock grazing as a tool that can achieve desired outcomes could improve our ability to achieve meaningful rangeland management outcomes in sagebrush and likely other rangeland communities,” Davies said.

7 Reasons Your Best Employees Quit

Tue, 01 Aug 2023 21:11:54 GMT

Learn how to avoid these frustrating and deal-breaking mistakes

Yes, recruiting members for your team is extremely difficult. But before you spend your time and energy on that challenge, focus first on your current team.

“Put retention in front of recruiting,” suggests Mel Kleiman, president of Humetrics, a human resource consulting firm. “Become a place that people want to work, and then when people hear you have an opening, they come to you.”

How do you prioritize retention? Analyze why employees leave your farm. Many times, their departures fall into these categories.

1. Substandard Co-Workers: “The good employees aren’t paid enough to cover for or put up with the hiring mistakes,” Kleiman says. Don’t force your good employees to compensate for others who are lazy, indifferent or undependable.

2. Mind-Numbing Tasks: New employees are often handed boring and repetitive jobs. Even in downtimes, come up with meaningful work, suggests Erika Osmundson, director of marketing and communications for AgCareers.com. Find ways to make roles on your farm fun or challenging.

3. No Attention or Authority: “When a supervisor is so busy fighting the fires created by problem employees, he or she never has any time for his best people,” Kleiman says. Many times, this busy leader also fails to delegate authority to capable employees, leaving those employees frustrated.

4. No Training: Forgot that often-repeated phrase that training is not a good investment because “they’ll leave in three months anyway.” Establish an ongoing training plan, suggests Wesley Tucker, University of Missouri Extension agricultural business specialist. “Utilize multiple methods to ensure employees absorb and retain critical information,” he says. “Look for opportunities for both formal and spontaneous training.”

5. No Chance for Advancement: Do you share insights about future opportunities or positions? Recognize how advancements drive retention and job satisfaction. “A lot of times, we hire young people and think they are great,” says Dave Allen, president of Agri-Search, a placement firm for agricultural jobs. “So, you let them go do their thing. But, if you forget about them, they will be gone in two years.”

6. Lack of Respect: Employees need positive recognition, Kleiman says. “Praise in public and criticize in private,” he says. Many times, supervisors avoid positive feedback for fear the recipient might ask for a raise – this is the wrong approach.

7. Scheduling Conflicts: When an employer promises “flexible hours,” but it turns out “flexible hours” means having to work whenever and however long the manager wants them to, good employees look for the exit door. “Structure work schedules to allow for flexibility,” Osmundson suggests. “Maybe you can work shortened hours during certain parts of the year. Look for unique ways you can offer flexibility.”

Learn more tips on how to lead your team at the at the 2021 Top Producer Summit. Register now!

Read More

10 Tips for Finding Allstar Employees

Build A Talent Pipeline

‘Tis the Season for Appreciation

Lingering Drought Challenges for Some Pasture and Range Conditions, USDA Report Reveals

Thu, 22 Jun 2023 12:15:34 GMT

While parts of the Midwest catch some much needed rains, other areas face dry conditions this growing season.

As seen in the U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook , released on June 15, provided by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) , drought will likely persist or slightly improve throughout much of the eastern Corn Belt and into the Great Plains regions.

Read More: Production Problems in the Eastern Corn Belt? A Look at NOAA’s New Summer Drought Outlook

While the drought map differs greatly from last year, the story of pasture and range conditions is not as bright as producers might expect.

In the recent USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Crop Progress report , pasture and range conditions show improvement over a year ago, yet some states still see lingering challenges.

According to the report for the week ending June 18, for the lower 48 states, 35% of pasture and range acres are of good condition, with an additional 35% of fair condition—consistent or slightly below last week, yet significantly greater than last year with 28% in good and 27% in fair conditions in 2022.

However, across the country, Nebraska, Texas, Missouri, Illinois and South Dakota are seeing ongoing impacts of drought reflected in the range conditions.

The report shows 35% of Nebraska’s total pasture acres in very poor to poor condition, with 30% of Texas, 37% of Missouri, 42% of Illinois and 26% of South Dakota falling into the same categories.

Improvements may be on the way for some of these areas, specifically Nebraska, southeast South Dakota and northwest Missouri, according to the seasonal drought outlook. Unfortunately, Texas and Illinois will likely see little relief in the coming months.

Meanwhile, Wyoming’s conditions soar above many states, with 62% and 24% of acres in good and fair conditions, respectively. Additionally, 54% of Oklahoma’s pastures are considered to be in good condition, with more drought improvements and removal likely.

As a producer, the upcoming months might make a difference on the overall conditions of pastures for years to come.

Here’s a few grazing management techniques for healthier grass, according to Colorado State University Extension.

1. Initiate a rotational grazing system. Here’s some information on getting started with rotational grazing .

2. Graze for short periods of time (7-10 days) and allow long re-growth periods (70-120 days) where the grass has time to recover with no grazing stress. Designate a small sacrifice area or corral, if necessary, to keep animals while grasses are recovering.

3. Allow grass to reach the proper height in inches before grazing. This will enable your grass to build strong roots for vigorous photosynthesis and growth. Learn more about proper grazing heights for specific forage species here.

4. Know when to remove your animals from an area. A rule of thumb is Take Half Leave Half. Never allow the grass to be grazed below a protective height.

5. Walk your pastures and monitor grass growth. Be flexible. Temperature and precipitation will vary from year to year, as will grass recovery time.

Cattle Fly Control: A Comprehensive Explanation and Options

Mon, 12 Jun 2023 21:04:59 GMT

Fly season is here – these little pests cause significant loss of production and spread disease readily. When we are talking about fly control, there are three big players: the horn fly, the face fly, and the stable fly. All have different life cycles, feeding patterns, and resting habits. For this reason, we must approach fly control with a variety of strategies for optimal control. Let’s look at each modality.

Self-applicators

There are several different forms of self-applicator rubs available: back rubbers, face strips that are hung from the back rubber, fly bullets, and insecticide-saturated covers for ground-level mineral feeders. Rubs and dust bags provide regular insecticide application and can be very effective with correct installation and regular maintenance. Tips:

• Hang dust bags at shoulder height (of the cattle you are treating) or lower so the cattle have to lift the bag with their head to pass under it. If they are able to get under the bag without having to lift it, then you will need to lower it.

• Keep the dust in the bag dry with a shelter or protective canvas cover, otherwise, it will clump and won’t dispense properly.

• Recharge rubs regularly with an oil-based insecticide; to be effective, they must feel wet to the touch.

• Avoid reloading the back rubber while still hanging. Instead, take it down, coil it in an empty tub, then pour the insecticide over it and let it soak up overnight.

• If you have problems with face flies or pinkeye, an insecticide-saturated cover for a mineral feeder will help immensely. Only fill the reservoir to recharge the lining; do not keep the reservoir full all the time or the insecticide will continuously wick out and drip on the ground.

Feed-through Products

Feed additives are often mixed with free-choice mineral or within the ration and contain ingredients that halt the normal development of immature fly stages in the manure, which interrupts the life cycle of the flies and prevents development of future generations. Keep in mind:

• For the oral larvicide to be effective, cattle must consume the labeled amount daily.

• Flies don’t stop at the fence line; adult flies can travel several miles to seek out a host. These issues can make it appear that the product is not working when in reality it is just one tool in our fight against flies.

Producer-applied Products

This is a broad class of products that are intended to be applied directly to the animal by the producer, and typically the insecticide is formulated to have residual activity. This category includes sprays, pour-ons, and unique insecticide delivery systems. Remember:

• The key to successful fly control with these products is applying a high enough level of insecticide and at a frequent interval.

• Sprays come ready to use or as a concentrate that must be mixed with a larger volume of water or oil, and they are intended to be misted over the animal to provide complete coverage. They can be applied with a pump-up sprayer or an ATV-mounted tank sprayer and must be reapplied at regular intervals. Oftentimes, cattle are sprayed while they are grazing out at pasture, but you also can gather them into a smaller corral to spray the group.

• Pour-ons are concentrated forms of insecticide that are applied along the backline and are then dispersed to cover the entire skin surface. These products are best applied during confinement or in a narrow alleyway or chute.

• There are other products with creative routes of administration, such as insecticide delivery systems that project capsules filled with insecticide that burst upon impact with the animal, applying insecticide similar to a pour-on product.

Fly Tags

Insecticide-impregnated fly tags are commonly used to help control horn flies and face flies. These tags release insecticide that is distributed over the animal. Tips:

• Apply the tags after horn flies are already active to provide optimal control.

• To avoid the development of resistance, rotate annually between fly tags with different classes of insecticide.

• Applying fly tags too early, when it’s practical to process cattle, will negatively impact how effective the tags control flies later in the season.

Premise Fly Control

This broad and diverse category includes fly traps, premise sprays, and insecticide baits. These options are intended for control of flies around a premises (barn, stable, residence, etc.). Keep in mind:

• Fly traps come in two styles: sticky traps and odor-attractant traps. The sticky traps catch flies that land on them, and some have patterns that attract flies to their surface. Odor traps attract flies to a container that they are unable to escape.

• Don’t place odor traps inside or near barns as they attract flies; instead, place them around the perimeter of pens.

• Premise sprays are insecticides with residual activity that are sprayed on surfaces. The flies are killed when they land on these treated surfaces.

• Fly baits contain attractants mixed with insecticide that can be set up in bait stations, as a scatter bait, or mixed with water and applied to surfaces.

Environment

The importance of environmental management to minimize fly breeding areas cannot be overstated, especially for confinement operations. Proper cleaning and addressing damp areas will reduce fly breeding sites, disrupt the fly life cycle, and will have a significant impact on fly numbers. Be sure to:

• Encourage water drainage and minimize decaying plant matter with cutting or burning, for cattle in a pasture setting.

• At least weekly, remove manure, damp and soiled hay, uneaten grain, and any other source of decaying organic matter in confinement areas. Scatter to dry.

It can be difficult to tell if your control efforts are having a positive impact, but I can assure you that they are. Be sure to use a variety of control options and always follow label instructions, and you will be well on your way to controlling those pesky flies!

More on Fly Control:

Insecticide Resistance: How to Help Cattle Fight Flies

Feed-through Parasite Control

Fly Control Recommendations for Livestock Producers

From the Flames: A Lesson in Thanksgiving from a Man Who Survived a Raging Oklahoma Wildfire

Wed, 23 Nov 2022 21:20:43 GMT

Driving back to rural Dewey County, in western Oklahoma, floods Terry Burleson with memories and images from 3.5 years ago.

“How I escaped this wilderness on fire was by the grace of God,” Terry says.

Among the web of canyons and charred cedars, Terry survived. A miracle, left behind after nearly 300,000 acres burned in April of 2018. It started as a quick trip in the side-by-side to scout locations for a turkey hunt the following morning. Terry and two family members were rolling through the pasture when they saw the smoke.

“It seemed to be a long way off and we weren’t taking on any smoke,” he says. “So, it just felt like it was 10, 15 or 20 miles away.”

But in minutes, the fire was on top of them. It was being pushed by 50 mile per hour winds and now a wall of flames was racing across the landscape. Their road back was blocked and so they ran.

“From that point is where we, for whatever reason, decided to split up,” remembers Terry. “I don’t know why even to this day.”

Terry, not expecting to ever get out, was in loafers as he tried to sprint through the canyons. Somewhere during his sprint, Terry lost his phone. The other two men, via fence lines and dirt roads, found a way to safety. Terry ran for his life, up hillsides and down canyons. He ran until he couldn’t,

“My mind was telling me the fire was going to jump and at any moment I was going to be sandwiched,” Terry says. “I kind of gave up and I laid down to die.”

As he listened to the fire howling around him, he found peace.

(Farm Journal)

“I talked to my wife once, right when we got out of the Ranger,” remembers Terry. “I talked to her and told her we were out on foot; we were in it, and it doesn’t look good.”

He lay at the bottom of the canyon, as cedars exploded around him.

“I don’t know, I wasn’t scared and maybe that’s a God thing, too,” Terry says.

As the heat rolled over him, the burning drove Terry to his feet. He was gasping through the smoke as he climbed out of the canyon and eventually broke the tree line onto flat ground. A small road created the perfect fire line.

“The way that road angles and the way the wind was blowing the same direction, that’s the only thing that allowed that fire to backburn past me,” Terry says.

It wasn’t long before the flames came roaring back to life. This time it was on his side of the road.

“That grass was about waist high,” Terry says. “So, you can imagine the flames were probably 10 feet and created just a big wall.”

Terry worked his way from one safe spot to another, laying as flat to the ground as could, beneath the smoke. Eventually, he was forced back across the road and into the ashes. He was safe as the fire once again raged past him.

Several hours went by and as night began to settle in Terry got to his feet, disoriented, hurting and lost. By chance or by providence he turned left down that road.

“Something told me to go left,” Terry says. “I was very fortunate because when I turn the corner, I saw a water trough and a windmill.”

Water! Terry wet his face, but he didn’t drink. He says given his situation he was worried it might make him sick. Then he laid down, out of the smoke on the cool concrete ring. That’s where he stayed until daylight.

(Farm Journal)

Meanwhile, his family feared the worst. They were kept away from the area by authorities and the raging fire.

“Knowing what the wind was doing, seeing the fire and watching it on the news we were just holding out for hope, begging God that he survives and praying all through the night,” recalls Mark Price, a family member. “You can’t sleep, and everyone was worried, nervous, scared and frustrated.”

When daylight broke, Price rallied the others from the family.

“I said it’s time to go,” said Price. “We’ve got to go find him.”

That morning, a few hundred yards at a time, Terry followed the trail across the pasture to a dirt road and then started toward the western Oklahoma town of Camargo.

“When I got across this cattle guard that’s when I saw a pickup coming,” Terry says.

He sank to the ground, and the men offered him water. Five minutes later his family arrived.

(Farm Journal)

“When we pulled up to that cattle guard, I saw him sitting in the road and I threw it in park, jumped out, jumped up in the air and screamed, ‘He’s alive, he’s alive, thank God he’s alive,’” Price says. “Then I thought, I’ve got to call his wife. So I grabbed the phone and I called her. I said, we found him. He’s alive. Then I hung up.”

Price laughs he probably didn’t share enough information, which worried family at the time.

“I got in trouble for that, and they said, you know, you didn’t really give us a lot of information,” Price says.

Local ambulance director Katrina Bryant was the first to arrive.

(Farm Journal)

“Truthfully, [Terry] was in good shape,” Bryant remembers. “I was expecting to be doing a body recovery, and the way that fire was burning, we probably wouldn’t have found a body. We probably would have found ashes.”

She says the entire emergency team knew he was missing and seeing him alive lifted spirits.

“When they found him, the talk on the radio chatter was just renewed life,” Bryant says.

Terry spent 21 days in the hospital, suffering third-degree burns on his arms and parts of his torso. His head and face had first-degree burns.

Exactly how and why he survived is a question Terry has grown to live with.

“You’ll hear God’s in control and so either he is, or he isn’t. It’s one of the two. It can’t be both,” Terry says.

“I know if the same thing happened to me, he wouldn’t stop until he found me. And you know, that’s just it’s a story of brotherhood, a story of friendship,” said Price.

“I try not to get emotional about it,” Terry says, surveying the place once more. “To come back and see it is all still a little bit surreal.”

From fire and ashes to walking among the living, Terry counts it a miracle. He remains thankful for every step along the way.

Managing Cows Through Dry Conditions: What Options Do I Have?

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 18:44:12 GMT

Hot, dry conditions in early summer have taken a toll on grass growth in much of the Great Plains this year. There are several options cattle producers may want to consider to conserve grass in these dry areas. Every producer should have a drought plan that includes trigger dates and a culling strategy, but once those top cuts are made, what feeding options are there for the core herd?

Can I just supplement the cows on pasture and save grass that way?

Yes and no. Providing a protein supplement such as range cubes or distillers grains will certainly help the cows maintain body condition, but supplying a protein supplement will actually allow the cows to digest low quality forage better and therefore, increase forage consumption, which is the exact opposite of the goal.

However, research has shown that mixing wet distillers and poor quality forage or crop residues can replace some grass consumption, but will likely not result in a pound for pound intake replacement of grass. Most ethanol plants are back to operating at full or near full capacity, so wet distillers grains may be readily available for some producers. For more information on forage replacement on pasture see Crop Residues or Low Quality Hay Combined with Byproducts as a Forage Substitute.

What are my options for feeding in confinement?

If a producer has February/March born calves, early weaning may be an option. This allows the producer to put the calves on a high quality diet so that the desired rate of gain is maintained, and the now dry cows will have a much lower energy requirement with the cessation of lactation, making them very easy to maintain on a limit fed diet in confinement. Management of Early Weaned Calves may be helpful if calves are early weaned.

If a producer has April/May born calves or simply prefers not to early wean, then pairs can be maintained in confinement, but several management issues need to be considered. Cow-calf pairs can be confined on pivot corners or fallow ground or a winter feed ground if desired. Calves will need to have access to feed as well, so supplying 2 feet of feeding space for the cows and 1 foot for the calves is important. Cows can be limit fed an energy dense diet mixed with poor quality forages but the diet needs to meet the demands of lactation.

Producers can visit with their Extension personnel to develop a diet to meet the cow’s requirements. Unfortunately, poor quality residues are more difficult to digest for the young calf, so producers may want to consider a creep area for the calves where they are allowed to graze or are fed a diet higher in digestibility that is off limits to the cows. All calves need access to a water source which is important for hydration and rumen development even if the calf is nursing. Calves born in confinement in July and August might also benefit from a source of shade. For more information on managing production cows in confinement, see Management Considerations for Beef Cows in Confinement.

Should I be concerned about the breeding season for my late spring calving cows?

Research has shown that cows breed back best on an increasing plane of nutrition. Therefore, if hot dry conditions produce grass that is mature a month ahead of schedule and grass availability is limited, then cows grazing in July and August could be experiencing a declining plane of nutrition, which could be detrimental to conception rates. Supplemental feed could be warranted, especially for the young cows nursing their first calf.

Very few cattle management decisions are easy. Culling decisions can often be clouded with emotion during difficult times. It is very important to evaluate the cost of feeding the cows as opposed to culling the cows to make the best long term management decision.

Read More:

What Are My Options When I Am Out of Grass?

Tips To Manage What’s Left of Drought Pastures

Mob Grazing Debunked: Is it the ‘Golden Ticket’ to Grazing Efficiency and Soil Health?

Thu, 11 Aug 2022 20:37:14 GMT

As the amount of available grazing lands continue to decrease, while the population and demand for beef continues to rise, ranchers face the question: How do we produce more with less?

The idea of ‘mob grazing’ has been around since the 1980s, as a way to increase stocking density while increasing nutrient cycling as cattle trample standing plants and ultimately yield healthier soils and biodiversity.

This practice includes cycling dense herds through multiple pastures a day, then giving pastures extra time to recover, with the idea that this intense grazing would increase soil health and livestock production.

However, a recently concluded, eight-year study by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), found alternate information.

The study included three cattle groups, 36 steers rotating twice per day through a total of 120 sub-irrigated pastures in the Nebraska Sandhills over a 60-day grazing period, nine steers on a four-pasture rotation system with one grazing cycle of 15 days per paddock (4PR1) over a 60-day grazing period and 10 steers on a four-pasture rotation system with two grazing cycles of 10 days per paddock (4PR2) over an 80-day grazing period.

Researchers Bianca Andrade, Walter Schacht and colleagues found that mob grazing led to the trampling of nearly 50% of the standing plants, and twice that of the conventional four-pasture rotations, yet the researchers found no meaningful difference in the subsequent production, composition or root growth of pasture plants, a UNL article says.

The team concluded that the benefits of trampling are, if anything, limited. Additionally, the added labor of mob grazing might far outweigh the benefits, for many operations.

Other results from the study include:

• Ground cover measured as ‘litter’ was consistently above 90% on all three treatments.

• The frequency of occurrence of native and exotic species did not vary in response to grazing treatments; however, it did vary in response to year (wet versus dry).

• The proportion of perennial versus annual species was not affected by any of the factors evaluated.

• Harvest efficiency was greater for 4PR1 (58.8%) than mob (45.3%) and 4PR2 (51.6%).

• By the end of the experiment, the percentage of crude protein was on average 2.2 percentage units greater in 4PR2 pastures than in 4PR1 or mob pastures.

• Average daily gain of steers in the 4PR2 pastures was greater than steers in the mob pastures in all years and greater than steers in the 4PR1 pastures in all years except for 2014.

Researchers suggest, “Ranchers might consider initiating mob grazing earlier in the growing season— when plants are leafier and more likely to be eaten—and introducing a second grazing cycle in the summer,” the article explains.

Work Begins on $19 Million Research Project on Cattle Grazing, Soil Health, Rancher Well-Being

Tue, 12 Jul 2022 20:46:53 GMT

Ground has broken — quite literally — on a $19 million research initiative aimed at understanding how a farmer or rancher’s grazing management decisions impact soil health and, in turn, how soil health can positively impact land and producer well-being.

The inaugural field sampling took place on Noble Research Institute’s ranches in southern Oklahoma in April 2022 with a second sampling session completed the last week of June. Field sampling was also conducted in June at the Michigan sites, and a final sampling session has been scheduled in August for the project’s Wyoming locations.

The collections are part of the Metrics, Management, and Monitoring: An Investigation of Pasture and Rangeland Soil Health and its Drivers , also known as the 3M project, one of the most robust investigations of ecosystem functions across time and space, diversity of landscapes, and gradients of management.

During each sampling session, researchers from Noble, Michigan State University, the University of Wyoming, Colorado State University and Quanterra Systems (UK) collect soil samples, perform water infiltration tests, assemble energy flux monitoring towers and take multiple vegetation measurements to be tied back to satellite imagery.

These field samplings occur on the project’s intensive measurement sites at ranch properties owned and managed by Noble, Michigan State and the University of Wyoming. The samplings are only the first step in a project that will span six years.

(Farm Journal)

“Farmers and ranchers will directly benefit from this project, and they will also be actively involved,” said Isabella C. F. Maciel, systems researcher at Noble and project co-lead. “Next year, we look forward to taking similar measurements at 60 producer-owned/managed sites located across Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming and Michigan.”

In addition to taking ecological measurements, researchers at Michigan State and Oregon State University will seek to understand socio-economic barriers to adoption of soil-health-related management in cow-calf operations. Understanding barriers will result in educational pathways for large-scale adoption of management principles leading to more profitable, resilient and productive ranches across the U.S.

Jason Rowntree, professor of the C.S. Mott Endowed Chair of Sustainable Agriculture at Michigan State and project co-lead, said the coalition spent at least two years building a “dream team” approach for grazing research, which resulted in what Rowntree believes is the largest funded grazing ecological research grant awarded.

“To see our team in action and all our planning come together is exciting,” Rowntree said. “To actually be out there in the field and scaling up — it’s rewarding to know that what we’re doing could have global impact on ranchers.”

The Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research awarded Noble Research Institute a $9.5 million grant to lead this critical research that is focused on impact soil health on pasture and rangeland (commonly called grazing lands). Noble Research Institute is providing $7.5 million to this project, with additional financial contributions from Greenacres Foundation, The Jones Family Foundation and ButcherBox .

For decades, farmers and ranchers who have followed soil health principles have improved the overall health of their land. The connection to economics and improved producer well-being, however, have – to this point – been largely anecdotal.

The 3M project seeks to quantify these observations and examines how management decisions on grazing lands are connected to the overall health of the ecosystem, economics and the well-being of farmers, ranchers and land managers.

While in its infancy, the project represents a platform from which additional research and expansion of its geographic footprint can occur. Scaling would be intended to add additional economic understanding and resolution to the research. As the project continues, the team will actively explore private and public funding opportunities to enable additional project development.

“We see expanding this research to include other states and partnering with market partners to deliver beef to consumers through varied market channels,” said Steve Rhines, president and CEO of Noble Research Institute. “This would allow us to create a clearer picture of the impacts of climate-smart grazing land management on farmer and rancher profitability, as well as consumer impacts.”

Managing Pastures with High Fertilizer Prices and Drought

Mon, 02 May 2022 14:52:55 GMT

Springtime usually brings concerns of tornadoes and severe weather. However, with continuing drought conditions, fears of wildfires may be high on producers’ minds. Fortunately, having an emergency preparedness plan can assist a cattlemen’s ability to respond to varying threats throughout the year. Developing a disaster plan is a good idea for both people and all the animals they care for on a farm or ranch.

The preparedness and response plan should be customized to the type of operation and possible threats. For instance, an element of a fire response plan would be the mechanics of relocating stock to a safer location. If not possible, a defensible area, that both people and animals could be moved to, would be designated. In advance, this area should be cleared of excess material with fire fueling potential, have perimeters established, and have ready access to water.

As part of the plan a livestock disaster preparedness kit should be developed. Elements of the kit should be accessible and in good working order. Below are suggested items:

Truck and trailer
Halters, leads, and rope
Pet crates
Hay, feed, and water that can be transported
Non-perishable food items and water for personnel
Containers to feed and water
Trashcan with lid and trash bags
Livestock marking crayon and bright colored spray paint
Pocket knives, wire cutters/fencing pliers, hammer, shovel, and bolt cutters
Gloves and bandanas
Baling wire and duct tape
Flashlights with batteries
Radio with batteries
Backup phone chargers
Generator
Portable panels
First aid kit with medications and bandage material for humans and animals
Verifiable animal records, identification, and registration documents
Emergency contact numbers including veterinarian

Part of the disaster plan should outline communication of all personnel before, during, and after the threat. More than one travel route should be established when evacuation is required. This approach also allows safety of personnel to stay top-of-mind during a response. Regular review of the plan and training exercises are encouraged so all members of the family or team are on the same page and know when and where to report.

Farmers and ranchers are resilient people and understand the importance of preparing for all kinds of circumstances. Emergency preparedness well in advance of a threat allows producers to respond in a manner that minimizes losses and hopefully allows recovery to occur in a more timely and efficient manner. More emergency response and preparedness guidance can be found at www.extensiondisaster.net .

Livestock Water Challenges Expected to Continue in 2022

Mon, 14 Mar 2022 17:28:25 GMT

Access to adequate, good quality water will continue to be a challenge for ranchers in North Dakota this spring, according to North Dakota State University (NDSU) Extension livestock environmental stewardship specialist, Miranda Meehan.

Many ranchers in the region still depend on surface water sources, such as dugouts and stock dams to provide water to grazing livestock. Due to drought conditions in both 2020 and 2021, many livestock sources either dried up or were potentially toxic to livestock.

Many sources in the state naturally contain salts, which are dissolved minerals or solids.

“Elevated concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) and sulfates can be toxic to livestock, resulting in decreased performance, abortions, blindness, central nervous system disorders and death,” says Meehan. “For most classes of grazing livestock, the TDS in the water should be less than 5,000 parts per million (ppm). Sulfate is part of the TDS. The recommended concentration should be less than 500 ppm for calves and less than 1,000 ppm for adult cattle.”

In 2021, Extension agents screened 1,547 water samples from 37 counties in North Dakota. The screenings identified 151 sources with elevated TDS levels, greater than 5,000 ppm. Potentially toxic sulfate levels, greater than 1,200 ppm, were identified at 330 locations.

Improvement in water quality in surface water sources depends on runoff.

Many surface water sources entered the winter at very low levels, if not dry. Even in areas of the state that received fall moisture, the majority of it infiltrated and replenished soil moisture and did not run off.

Across much of the state, snowpack is below normal or not present, which will decrease the potential for runoff. Unfortunately, spring rainfall alone likely will not be adequate to dilute salt concentrations in surface waters.

“As you prepare for the upcoming grazing season, we recommend monitoring water quality and evaluating alternative water options,” says Meehan. “We recommend a couple tools to aid in monitoring water quality, a hand-held TDS meter and sulfate test strips. Both these tools are affordable and easy to use. If the screening indicates the TDS is greater than 4,500 ppm and/or sulfates are greater than 800 ppm, submit a sample to a lab for additional analysis.”

Meehan encourages ranchers who encountered water quality issues in 2021 to evaluate and consider developing an alternative water source.

“Installing a water development plan can help ensure that livestock have access to good-quality water throughout the grazing season and increase a ranch’s drought resilience,” says Meehan.

Many cost-sharing opportunities are available to producers for installing water developments through agencies and organizations including the Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, soil conservation districts and conservation groups. In addition, the Department of Water Resources still has funds available through the Drought Disaster Livestock Water Supply Project Assistance Program.

For more information on livestock water quality, contact your local NDSU Extension office or visit www.ndsu.edu/agriculture/ag-hub/ag-topics/livestock/water/testing-livestock-water-quality-critical-during-drought

Feds Plan Aerial Gunning of Estray Cattle in New Mexico

Sat, 05 Feb 2022 14:19:50 GMT

An unknown number of estray cattle roam the Gila National Forest near the New Mexico/Arizona border. Grazing on sensitive forage, the Federal Wildlife Service (FWS) plans to shoot the estray cattle via helicopter flyover beginning February 8-10, 2022.

Previous efforts have been made to round up estray cattle in the forest, catching approximately 20 head; however, this has pushed the remaining cattle further into the forest.

The New Mexico Cattle Growers Association stated in a press release that they are concerned with the FWS agents’ ability to determine branded and unbranded livestock. “From a helicopter this task would be difficult for even a knowledgably adept livestock producer to identify brand markings and ear tags. There is no assurance that the gunning-down of these livestock will not include private property.” NWCGA says.

With minimal notice of the planned action, NMCGA points out that there is no federal statute or regulation that allows the FWS to gun-down livestock. The impoundment of livestock is allowed, but only after certain notice conditions are met. Estray livestock are under the jurisdiction of the New Mexico Livestock Board.

Another point of contention with local cattle ranchers is the presence of the federally listed endangered species, the Mexican Gray Wolf. Shooting the estray cattle will provide an easily accessible food source that may condition the wolves to prey on livestock.

A similar proposal of managing the estray cattle last year ended with a notice of intent to sue by local ranchers. In addition, the New Mexico Livestock Board renounced the use of aerial gunning.

Drought Threat Expanding

Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:27:18 GMT

Drought is expanding in the country. While much of the intermountain west, the southwest and parts of the northern plains have been in drought for much of the past 18 months or more, drought is expanding dramatically now in the central and southern plains. The Drought Monitor tracks drought conditions in categories from D0 (Abnormally Dry) to D4 (Exceptional Drought). The five categories can be combined into a single index number known as the Drought Severity and Coverage Index (DSCI). The DSCI can range in value from 0 to 500. The current national DSCI is 176 and has ranged from a low of 164 to a high of 188 for the past year. The U.S. has continuously had a DSCI over 100 since July 2020 and over 150 since October 2020. Prior to that, the last time the DSCI was over 150 was September 2013.

While the DSCI is a useful single index value, it can mask changes in the drought. Compared to one year ago, drought across the country is more widespread and the pockets of most severe drought are smaller. Currently 70.87 percent of the country is in D0 or worse compared to 64.68 percent one year ago. However, the current percent of D3-D4 is 12.21 percent compared to 20.38 percent last year. The D4 category alone is currently 1.32 percent compared to 8.79 percent one year ago.

The national DSCI also masks regional variation and the regional changes in drought over time. While the national DSCI has maintained an elevated but relatively narrow range for the past year, regional drought conditions vary widely as shown in the following examples. Parts of the southwest and southern Rocky Mountain regions experienced severe drought in 2020, with limited improvement in 2021 but with persistent drought. New Mexico has a current DSCI of 307 and has been above 200 since July of 2020. The New Mexico DSCI peaked at 436 for several weeks about one year ago. North Dakota had a DSCI of 249 one year ago, peaked at 393 in May 2021 and currently is at 171. Montana has a current DSCI of 321 and has been above 300 since last July.

By contrast, Oklahoma had a DSCI of 40 one year ago and dropped to just 8 in July 2021. However, since November, the Oklahoma DSCI has increased rapidly to the current level of 314. Texas has a similar story, going from a DSCI less than 100 last October to the current level of 282. Though not as severe at this time, dry conditions have expanded across much of Kansas and Nebraska in the past three months.

There is plenty of time to avoid widespread drought impacts but without significant moisture in the next 2-3 months, the cattle industry could see major market impacts that affect the entire industry as well as the tremendous hardships that would land on many producers and individual operations. Although the worst impacts may not be realized for several months yet, producers should begin planning now for the decisions that would be required if spring doesn’t come. Hopefully it is a plan that will never be needed.

Ranchers Thursday Lunchtime Webinar series on managing forages through drought from February 4, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cjLc8jpn2A&t=12s

Midwestern Beef Production Works Just as Well Off Pasture

Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:26:15 GMT

Beef producers in the upper Midwest know grazing land is in short supply. With more acres being developed or converted to cropland, producers who want to expand their cow-calf operations are looking for alternatives to traditional pasture management.

New research from University of Illinois animal scientists and I-BELIEF students shows cow-calf pairs can be managed in drylots throughout the summer grazing period with few negative consequences.

When we extended the drylot phase throughout the summer, we were able to get excellent performance on our drylot cows. They maintained body weight and body condition and had good reproductive rates. Everything was excellent in that regard. Calves on the drylot had increased performance throughout the pre-weaning phase, as well,” says Dan Shike, associate professor in the Department of Animal Sciences at U of I and lead researcher on the study.

The team compared Angus × Simmental cow-calf pairs on pasture and in drylots – in this case, concrete lots and open-front sheds with bedding – between May and August, repeated over two years. Broadly, they looked at growth performance, lactation, locomotion, and calf behavior at weaning and during the feedlot receiving period.

“Producers who want to explore drylotting have a lot of questions, so we tried to tackle as many of the big-picture answers as we could,” Shike says.

In the drylot, cows were limit-fed a standard TMR maintenance diet, but calves had free access to the same diet in an adjacent creep pen. Pairs on pasture grazed available forage, with calves nursing and eating a processed creep feed three weeks prior to weaning.

The research team expected cows and calves to do as well or better in the drylot, and that’s just what they found.

“The cows in the drylot performed exactly as we intended because we had more control over their environment and were able to formulate a ration to meet their nutritional needs. The cows in the pasture are really at the mercy of the weather,” Shike says. “Consequently, the cows on pasture had lower body weight and body condition score compared to cows in the drylot.”

Calves did better in the drylot than pasture, again because of the controlled diet and environment. When it was time for weaning and shipment to the feedlot, pasture-raised calves were significantly smaller than their drylot-raised counterparts.

“We anticipated the pasture-raised calves would have compensatory gain, and they did. They had higher rates of gain and tended to be more efficient in that receiving phase,” Shike says. “But, even after 42 days, they hadn’t caught up because they started so far behind the drylot calves in weight.”

Pasture-raised calves were brought into the drylot for weaning, where they had nose-to-nose access to their mothers in adjacent pens. Calves raised in the drylot stayed in place, but were separated from their mothers by a fence. Drylot calves seemed somewhat less stressed at this phase, according to behavioral indicators including vocalization, eating, walking, and lying down.

After six days of weaning, calves were transported 170 miles from the Orr Agricultural Research and Demonstration Center in Baylis to the U of I campus farms to begin the feedlot phase. Surprisingly, pasture-raised calves showed fewer signs of stress during feedlot receiving than their drylot-raised counterparts.

“We were thinking if they’re in a drylot, they’re already used to an intensive system. Maybe that will help them transition to another intensive system like the feedlot. But it didn’t give them an advantage. That was probably one of our more surprising findings,” says Josh McCann, assistant professor in animal sciences and co-author on the study.

“We think calves on pasture may have adapted faster to the feedlot because they had already gone through one transition – from the pasture to pen at weaning – and because being on pasture gives them more physical separation from their moms. We could imagine they were more mentally prepared to be separated when shipped to the feedlot. For the drylot pairs, it’s like when your kids stay home with you all day, sending them off to school becomes a little more stressful at first.”

The researchers say producers should consider a few potential risks associated with drylotting. In the study, they found a higher incidence of foot and leg issues, including lameness and problems with locomotion.

Shike says, “The dairy industry certainly experienced more issues with feet and legs as they intensified and moved cows into confinement. The beef industry will have to pay attention to this issue as well, but there are things we can do in terms of how we manage bedding and drainage. Even though we had to treat some cows, it ultimately didn’t impact body weight, body condition, or reproduction. There was some labor and expense associated with treating them, though.”

Although the team didn’t conduct an economic analysis, McCann notes the cost of treating locomotion issues isn’t the only expense to consider.

“An intensive system requires more labor and, of course, there’s the cost of feed,” he says. “There wasn’t much of a downside to the drylot system for animal performance, but producers will want to look at the economic tradeoffs for their individual operations.”

The study, “Effects of housing beef cow-calf pairs on drylot or pasture in the Midwest on production parameters and calf behavior through feedlot receiving,” is published in the Journal of Animal Science [DOI: 10.1093/jas/skab357]. The research was funded by the Iowa Beef Council Industry. The USDA-supported Illinois Beef Experiential Learning and Industry Exposure Fellowship (I-BELIEF) funded two student authors, Keifer Sexton and Lucas Hofer.

Cattle Ranchers Cull Cows as 60% of U.S. Cow Herd Faced with Drought

Wed, 19 May 2021 17:45:35 GMT

Rain is falling this week across a large swath of the country. It’s good news for areas stricken with drought, and a welcome sign for cattle producers. The latest U.S. Drought monitor indicates drought is gripping pastures, with 60% of the nation’s cow herd is now in some level of drought or dryness. That’s forcing cows to the processor in numbers not seen in a decade.

The latest drought monitor shows 46%t of the country is now in some level of drought, much of that dryness is hitting in the West. However, there’s growing concern from North Dakota to Texas about drought intensifying as summer weather arrives. According to Drovers, in some areas, pastures aren’t greening up and that’s already forcing cows to slaughter.

“The cow slaughtered for March of this year was up 10% over last year already, and April was up 4 to 5% over last year, and that’s after last year,” says Greg Henderson, editor of Drovers. “2020 beef cow slaughter was up 7%. That was the highest beef cow slaughter since 2010.

Henderson says the high cost of grain is complicating matters. Feedyards are pushing to keep calves out on pasture longer, hoping to get cattle to heavier weights so they haven’t feed them as long. That’s been difficult given the current pasture situation.

Fly and Tick Season is Upon Us

Wed, 19 May 2021 17:44:00 GMT

From year-to-year the fly and tick season is highly variable. Some producers may have pinned their hope on a hard winter to reduce these external parasites but in reality, it may not influence the overall intensity or longevity of the season.

Regardless of the perception of how bad the fly or tick populations could be it is important to plan on control practices that are economical and allow the cattle to be efficient in their energy expenditures.

Cattle are impacted by blood feeding external parasites whether they are ticks or flies. Anytime one of these pests becomes excessive it causes stress to the animals. Stress can be a result from the blood feeding activity or the animal’s reaction to these parasites when on the animals.

Essentially, when cattle are infested with flies or ticks they become less efficient in converting nutrients into weight gain or milk production for the claves. This means they are utilizing energy in different areas to combat the stress from fly and tick feeding. Another issue associated with some fly and tick species is the role they play in pathogen transmission into the herd such as anaplasmosis.

When considering how to plan for a fly and tick control program for your cattle operation it is important to know the difference in application methods and their specific longevity in relation to adequate control. While most cattle producers prefer the ease of use of pour-on type products this method will only provide at most three weeks of control if these products do not have systemic activity.

Most pour-on products with systemic activity are those that are considered endectocides or within the class of macrocyclic lactones including ivermectin and moxidectin type products. These products will provide some suppression of blood feeding flies and ticks for up to 45 days. However, cattle producers should always design their endectocide applications with internal parasites in mind not just flies or ticks.

Some cattle producers utilize cattle oilers or modified self-application devices, but it is important that the majority of the herd be treated properly. This means cattle producers need to monitor when animals interact with these types of devices to ensure that at least 75% of the herd is treated. It is also important to utilize the proper kind of oil and be sure the pesticide is labeled for oilers or to be mixed with oil.

When evaluating these types of devices efficacy is somewhat improved when mixing the pesticide with #2 diesel or mineral oil. This type of device provides adequate control for horn flies up to a month if the device is maintained well and only provide adequate control of ear ticks.

Insecticide ear tags are commonly used for ticks that infest the ears and horn flies. These devices utilize the animal’s behavior to spread the pesticide across the ears and back as the animal tosses their heads back in reaction to horn fly infestations. This type of application will provide some level of control in this area for up to three months and in some areas where the fly and tick populations are not excessive it will provide up to four months of control. It is important to rotate the type of pesticide class the ear tags belong to each year to limit pesticide resistance.

Sprays are still a common method among producers with smaller herds or producers with resources that allow them to treat the cattle while in the pasture such as ATV sprayers. The approach to spraying cattle for flies versus ticks are slightly different in the coverage areas. Typically, for flies you want to treat from the head to the tail until the animal appears wet but not to the point of run-off.

If treating for ticks you will need to treat the poll of the head and the ears down through the brisket area for ear ticks and thoroughly treat around the udders or between all legs when treating for other types of ticks. For most tick treatments, you will need to apply the pesticide to certain areas more thoroughly than if treating for flies to allow for adequate coverage where ticks prefer to attach to cattle. Spray applications should always be planned with some consideration of weather events especially significant rainfall that could influence the pesticide efficacy. A sound spray application will last approximately 2 weeks but other factors can influence the longevity of the spray such as moisture or cattle behavior that leads to dilution of the product such as when cattle cool themselves off in ponds.

Overall, when making decisions concerning proper techniques for fly and tick control cattle producers should consider that not all products will be as persistent as others. Also, all of the above applications can be combined with the use of an insect growth regulator (IGR) to sustain longer horn fly control but IGR products do not control ticks.

See Dr. Talley discuss increasing activity of ticks in coming weeks on Sunup TV on May 15, 2021.

Reproductive Management of Cow Herd During Drought

Wed, 07 Apr 2021 17:32:23 GMT

The most recent U.S. Drought Monitor indicated that 100% of North Dakota is in drought status, with 85% of the state in at least a severe drought category and 47% in an extreme drought category.

While the state is familiar with drought, the last time that the extreme drought category was initiated this early in the growing season was in 2008. Starting to develop or modify management plans in anticipation of the many challenges ahead is critical for producers.

With breeding season approaching, producers must think about how to manage during a drought to keep the most productive and valuable cows in the herd.

“Given concerns about feed supplies and rangeland health, most producers will be facing some tough decisions in the months to come,” says Janna Block, Extension livestock systems specialist at North Dakota State University’s Hettinger Research Extension Center.

Culling is One Option

Culling is probably at the forefront of many producers’ minds. Typically, the properties that a cow possesses that get her added to the cull list include a bad attitude, old age and/or open pregnancy status. Additional considerations could include structural issues (feet and legs) and poor udders.

Producers also should evaluate production records.

“Cows that are consistently calving late in the breeding season and weaning light calves are not profitable and should be culled,” advises Lisa Pederson, Extension livestock specialist at NDSU’s Central Grasslands Research Extension Center. “Because drought conditions are estimated to be widespread, it is a good idea to make plans to reduce herd size before the market is flooded with cull cows.”

Several computerized performance record programs are available to help producers develop a ranked list of cows based on factors such as calf weaning weight and other performance indicators. The NDSU CHAPS (Cow Herd Appraisal Performance Software) system is one example of this type of program.

“It also allows producers to more effectively utilize individual herd data by comparing data with production benchmarks.

Shorten the Breeding Season

Another way to increase efficiency during drought is to shorten the breeding season. Females that breed early are more likely to remain in the herd longer than those that conceive later.

Considering that the average gestation length is 283 days, cows need to conceive within 82 days of calving to maintain a yearly calving interval. In general, mature cows take a minimum of 40 days to recover from calving and begin to cycle. This recovery process may be up to 70 days for first-calf heifers or longer if they are thin or had a difficult delivery.

Breeding yearling heifers to calve at least three weeks ahead of the mature cow herd is a good way to ensure that they resume estrous cycles before the breeding season starts. A 45-day breeding season for heifers and a 45- to 60-day breeding season for mature cows would be ideal if conditions allow. Pregnancy checking can be conducted within 35 to 40 days after the end of the breeding season, which allows open cows to be marketed earlier.

A shortened breeding season results in a more uniform calf crop and increased selection pressure for fertile and productive cows. This strategy also will increase the percentage of open cows, particularly if extended breeding seasons have been used in the past. One way to avoid drastic responses would be to shorten the breeding season gradually by two to three weeks per year until the goal has been reached.

Using an estrous synchronization protocol also could be considered to give more cows the opportunity to conceive. The ideal strategy and length of the breeding season will vary depending on feed resources and goals of the operation when considering drought management. Estrous synchronization protocols are available for natural breeding and artificial insemination situations.

House Cows in a Drylot

Limited forage supplies and/or grazing capacity may have some producers considering housing cows in a drylot during the breeding season. This strategy can make implementing estrous synchronization and artificial insemination protocols easier to do, and also can increase the number of cows that bulls can breed naturally.

Having cows in a drylot also can allow for increased monitoring and the ability to sort and feed groups of cows to optimize body condition. Having an area where calves can get away from cows and bulls is important. One idea is to provide a nearby “creep pasture” for calves where they can get out of the drylot and graze.

“Ultimately, thinking about ways to manage the breeding season during drought comes down to strategic use of feed resources and increasing efficiency and productivity in the cow herd,” Block says.

For more information on herd management and culling during drought, range and pasture management, water quality and other drought-related topics, visit www.ag.ndsu.edu/drought .

Online Learning Opportunities from Nebraska Beef Extension

Nebraska Beef Extension has planned several online learning opportunities that cover a variety of topics. For more more information and registration visit www.beef.unl.edu .

Increasing Feed Value of Grazed Corn Residue
Tuesday, Sept. 24, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. (CDT)

How to determine and adjust stocking rates
The agronomic impacts grazing has on row crop production
Developing rental agreements
Meeting nutritional needs while grazing corn residue

2025 Beef Heifer Replacement Price Forecast
Thursday, Sept. 26, Noon (CDT)

Figure what cow replacement costs might be given market volatility, futures expectations, costs, etc.
Create a reference point for producers’ operations and expectations of potential future events.
Arrive at what a reasonable value might be for a heifer/cow purchased or retained for replacement given their situation.

UNL Heifer Development Center First Year Wrap-up
Wednesday, Oct. 2, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m.

Online or in-person at Haskell Agricultural Laboratory.
Nutritional development of beef heifers
Genetics and INHERIT Select
Great Plains Heifer Development Center Tour
ABS
Cattler Software
2024 Heifer Development project recap

Cornstalk Grazing Fundamentals, Leases and Agronomic Impacts
Tuesday, Oct. 8: Corn Residue Grazing Fundamentals
Thursday, Oct. 10: Grazing Leases, Prices and Finding and Renting Residue
Tuesday, Oct. 15: Agronomic Impacts for Grazing Corn Residue
Thursday, Oct. 17: Producer Panel – Challenges and Opportunities

Knowing, Growing and Grazing Grass
Oct. 14, 17, 21, 24, 28 & 31, 7:30 – 8:45 p.m. (CDT)

Plant identification and key grass species
Maximizing forage production and calculating stocking rates
Using the USDA Web Soil Survey to estimate the range of production, and how to adjust a grazing plan during low precipitation years.
A grazing plan, key dates for grazing management, and understanding drought risk insurance (Pasture Range and Forage- PRF)

Pasture, Rangeland, Forage Insurance for Livestock Producers
Tuesday, Oct. 24, Noon (CDT)

PRF coverage strategies, associated implications, and historical performance of PRF using examples for Nebraska grids
An overview of the PRF insurance product and performance

Leveraging Genetics to Improve Profitability
Tuesday, Nov. 4 & Thursday, Nov. 6, 6:30 – 7:45 p.m. (CDT)

Developing a breeding objective.
How to interpret and use EPD and economic selection indexes.
Hands-on bull selection exercises.
Developing a customized selection index.
Use cases for genomic tools.

Cattle Cost of Production, part of the Ag Smart Money Week series
Tuesday, Nov. 4

Calculating economic unit cost of production for the cow-calf enterprise.
Knowing what the big three categories of cost are.
Understanding the five ways to reduce unit cost of production.

Fundamentals of Feeding the Cow
Nov. 11, 14, 18 & 21, 7:30 pm – 8:45 pm

What impacts a cow’s nutrient requirements and how do they change throughout the year?
How do you read and understand a feed test analysis and feed tag? What do the numbers mean?
When comparing feed options, which is the best buy when all things are considered?
What are things to consider when developing a year-round feeding plan?