“We have boot washes and other biosecurity measures in the barn. We need to take these measures in order to minimize the damage,” said Herrema, who farms near Uxbridge, Ont.

Why it matters: The dairy sector has regular visits from off-farm suppliers, so steps have had to be taken to maintain distance and reduce risk from the COVID-19 coronavirus.

Building a tank room encompassing only the front of the milk tank, the lid and valve has helped to limit the Herrema farm’s contact with the truck driver.

“When we built the barn we decided to have that room so it can be that the milk trucker is the only one to use it.”

Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) has suspended proAction validations until April 30 and has asked producers to limit contact with milk truck drivers.

Holstein Canada has suspended all on-farm services, including classifications, proAction animal care assessments and any regular field services.

“The organization is moving quickly to respond and adapt to the current situation. We are committed to the continued delivery of high-quality milk and the health and safety of our employees, dairy producers and their families, and milk truck drivers,” DFO chair Murray Sherk said in a statement.

Holstein Canada’s decision, made March 17, has affected producers in every province.

“We have staff in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Atlantic Canada, Ontario and Quebec all having to go home,” said Brad Eggink, manager of classification and field services for Holstein Canada.

Holstein Canada is hoping to have the suspension lifted April 3, with field staff heading back to work on April 6.

The Ontario and Quebec governments “have ordered that all non-essential businesses remain closed for the next two weeks,” Eggink said Tuesday in an interview.

Of course, this may change as Holstein Canada is basing the decision on government rules, which change on a daily basis.

Dairy producers across the country have been appreciative of Holstein Canada’s leadership in decision making during this uncertain time, Eggink said.

Lactanet — formed last summer as a new entity encompassing CanWestDHI, Valacta and the Canadian Dairy Network — announced as of Wednesday it would not be offering any on-farm services, including sample pick up or data collection, for two weeks. Its Guelph laboratory and offices are also closed.

Customer services desk and DairyComp support will be available from employees working from home, CEO Neil Petreny said in a letter.

Feed blends

The Herrema farm, meanwhile, has also provided soap for the truck driver to use if needed — but Herrema has noticed drivers wearing disposable gloves and doing their part to minimize contact.

It’s important for producers to respect the request of DFO to maintain distance from the drivers, he said.

“These guys are shipping our product, we need to respect that in order to maintain safe quality milk. To ensure the driver safety is of utmost importance (and) we need to take every precaution we can.”

When completing day-to-day tasks, Herrema said, he doesn’t feel affected by changes imposed by the government to limit the COVID-19 coronavirus’ spread — but he’s being cautious on the feed aspect of the business.

“There are ethanol plants that have decided to potentially shut down because of the low price of gasoline. It’s going to change our feed blends a little bit.”

As well, feed test lab shutdowns can have a negative affect on his business.

“In case we get a problem on the farm and need to find out whether it is because of the feed, or if we change rations and need to adjust our ingredient list (a lab shutdown) would be an impact on us for sure.”

Currently there are no supplier visits to farms, so all consulting has been done over the phone — and Herrema said all suppliers have been great through this period.

— Jennifer Glenney is a reporter for Farmtario.

The post Dairy sector shuts down most visits from off-farm providers appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Luckily, feed testing can help you manage both.

“The nutrition program is almost always the culprit when things just aren’t quite right,” said Karin Schmid, research and production manager for Alberta Beef.

“Maybe your average daily gains aren’t as high as you think they should be. Maybe your open rates are a little higher than they should be.

“But the first place you should look is at your nutrition program for those types of things.”

Testing feed is the critical first step, Schmid said during a recent Beef Cattle Research Council webinar. Aside from determining quality, feed test results can help producers identify nutritional deficiencies, develop supplementation programs, and reduce feed costs.

But despite all those benefits, feed testing is something most producers don’t do.

The 2017 Western Canadian Cow-Calf Survey found only 38 per cent of producers test their feed annually (down from 47 per cent in 2014). Of those who don’t regularly test, 61 per cent said they based their decision on their cattle appearing to be healthy, while 16 per cent relied on indicators such as body condition. A further nine per cent said they relied on results from their feed supplier, while eight per cent cited the cost of tests and six per cent said they weren’t sure how to collect a sample.

But feed testing can be a vital investment in your herd — particularly heading into a winter like this one, where pasture ratings are generally poor across the province and feed could be in short supply in some spots.

“Between 70 and 75 per cent of annual feed costs are from winter feeding, and every dollar reduction in feed costs is almost $2.50 profitability improvement,” said Schmid.

“If we’re really balancing our rations properly, we can save anywhere from $50 to $150 in feed costs per cow per winter. That’s a big, big deal when margins are tight.”

Testing your feed can also help you avoid some “sneaky” — and costly — production problems, she added.

Say, for instance, your nutrition program has left you with 10 open cows at a salvage value of $11,000. And because you have 10 fewer calves, you’ve lost $12,000 in revenue. Finding 10 new replacement heifers and developing those heifers into bred cows will cost around $20,000. So overall, there’s a net loss of about $21,000 on those 10 cows.

“You can’t manage what you don’t measure,” said Schmid. “If we can refine our nutrition program enough that we’re really reducing those open rates, it can have a big impact on your bottom line.”

Taking samples

That starts with getting the right samples of your feed.

“A major source of error in analysis is due to sampling error,” said Megan Van Schaik, beef cattle specialist for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs.

“So to get the most bang for your buck and the most accurate results for your feed tests, it’s really critical to take representative samples.”

That means taking sub-samples from separate lots of feed and mixing those sub-samples into a composite sample to send away for testing.

“The key thing to remember throughout your sampling is to embrace the concept of sampling by lot,” said Van Schaik. “There can be quite a bit of variability across cuts, fields, and storage methods, so we want to reduce that variability by sending away separate samples from different cuts, fields, farms, and storage methods.”

When taking sub-samples, the right tool for the job depends on what you’re sampling. For baled forage, you should take a core sample from around 20 bales using a sharp forage probe, while grain or processed feed samples should be taken with a grain probe.

Pasture sub-samples should come from handfuls of forage clipped at grazing height from around 20 different sites where the cattle graze. Ditto for silage — take 10 to 20 grab samples from different locations in the pile. When sampling swaths, though, select three to five representative plants from the windrow in 20 locations across the field.

Those whole plants will be sent to the lab for analysis, but for the other samples, collect them in a clean pail and mix them thoroughly.

It’s also important to maintain sample integrity after they’ve been collected, Van Schaik added.

“After you take that composite sample, we want to make sure that it’s stored properly. Improper storage can lead to spoilage and respiration, and that can ultimately skew your results from your feed test.”

Using the test results

Samples should also be taken as close to feeding as possible, Schmid added.

“The quality will change over time, so it’s important to realize that just because you’ve sampled a certain field in the past, the quality isn’t going to be the same year over year,” she said. “Environmental conditions have a huge effect on what your quality ends up looking like.”

Then it’s a matter of actually using the information.

“It’s not enough just to get a feed test and stick it in the drawer,” she said. “We want to use the results we get from these feed tests to balance the ration to make sure we’re meeting all the nutritional requirements.”

The Alberta Beef, Forage, and Grazing Centre has a tool that uses feed test results to pinpoint potential nutritional problems and compare the economic value of different feeds based on their quality.

The tool looks at things such as the class of the cattle, the stage of their production, and the dry matter feed test results to evaluate the ability of a single feed to meet basic nutritional requirements.

“We’ve basically created a report card for feed test results,” said Schmid.

“It will not balance a ration. It will not formulate a least-cost ration. This is really just a quick and easy look at whether or not a single feed is going to be appropriate for cattle in terms of meeting their nutritional requirements.”

To use this and other tools to optimize your feeding program, visit ‘Decision Making Tools’ at beefresearch.ca.

The post Feed testing is a luxury you can’t afford to miss out on this winter appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The tools (developed by the Alberta Beef, Forage and Grazing Centre) can help flag potential nutritional problems, and identify the comparative economic value of different feeds based on their quality.

Feed testing can prevent ‘sneaky production problems ‘ (such as poor gains or reduced conception caused by mineral or nutrient deficiencies or excesses); identify toxicity issues (caused by mycotoxins, nitrates, sulphates, or other minerals or nutrients); develop nutritionally appropriate rations; identify nutritional gaps that may require supplementation; identify opportunities to include diverse ingredients; and accurately price feed.

One of the tools is for evaluating feed test results.

While not intended for use in ration balancing, it can identify potential issues with individual feed ingredients.

Users first select the cattle class (backgrounding, replacements, mature cows or mature bulls) and then either the average daily gain (for backgrounding) or stage of production (for the other three classes). The weight of the cattle is entered in Step 3 and in the last step, the results of feed tests are entered.

The suitability of the feed is indicated by a colour-coded response. Green indicates that the nutrient is adequate to meet nutritional requirements. Yellow indicates the TDN requirements are within a range of plus or minus 2.5 per cent; within plus or minus five per cent for CP requirements; and 0.05 per cent below mineral requirements. Red indicates the feed does not meet animal requirements.

The second tool evaluates the economic value of feeds based on nutrient content.

It uses the current price of a reference feed (such as barley, canola meal, or another option chosen by the producer) and feeds that are under consideration.

For links to both tools and a full explanation on how to use them, go to beefresearch.ca for ‘Tool for Evaluating the Economic Value of Using a Single Feed.’

The post You’ve got your feed results — now what? appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“Using higher-quality feed early in the season could mean it is not available later in the season when the cows really need it,” said livestock extension specialist Andrea Hanson. “It could get costly for the operation, either by increasing feed costs or reducing cow fertility.”

With supplies tight in many areas, it’s critical to test feed.

“Overfeeding is wasting dollars,” she said. “Conversely, if the animal’s nutrient requirements aren’t being met, it can negatively affect their immediate well-being and future reproductive efficiency.”

The only way to accurately determine the forage’s nutrient composition is by sampling and testing the feed.

“Using last year’s feed tests or using a provincial average for a feed’s nutritional content, is not realistic or useful,” said Hanson. “While physical attributes are part of feed quality, they don’t tell the whole story. A bright-green colour does help indicate the feed was put up with little or no rain — and that the mould level is little to none — but it does not tell much more than that.

“Protein and energy content of the same hayfield can vary greatly depending on when it was cut. Brome cut very early in the year could reach 18 per cent protein while that same forage may only be five to six per cent protein if cut late.”

Protein requirements of a cow change depending on where she is in her pregnancy.

“A minimum of seven per cent protein is needed in the second trimester while in the third trimester, nine per cent protein is needed,” said beef and forage specialist Barry Yaremcio. “She requires 11 per cent protein when lactating.”

A basic forage analysis will list moisture content, energy as total digestible nutrients (TDN), net energy (NE) and/or digestible energy (DE), and crude protein values as well as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and potassium.

“A basic analysis should cost less than $50, which is much less than the cost of a round bale of feed, let alone the possible savings from using fewer bales of hay mixed with lower-quality forages,” said Hanson. “The more advanced analytical packages will provide more details about the feed depending on what is requested. If an early frost or crop stress has been experienced in the area and there are concerns, a nitrate test may be very beneficial as would a toxin test.”

The post Know what you have for livestock feed and use it strategically appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“It’s best to develop a strategy to get the most out of your feed supply at the start of feeding season, and it’s not too late,” said provincial beef extension specialist Andrea Hanson.

By testing the various feeds and knowing the nutritional values of each, producers can avoid future issues and know that they are feeding the right feeds at the right time. For every dollar winter feed costs are reduced, adds more than $2 to net returns.

Many of Alberta’s commercial cow herds are now in their second trimester of pregnancy and a cow’s needs differ considerably in her first, second and third trimesters.

First trimester: If cows came off pasture with a body condition score of less than 3 on a scale of 5, they require more feed to stay warm through the winter and grow a healthy calf. Thinner cows would benefit from being sorted from the rest of the herd and fed separately, or perhaps with the first-calf heifers.

Second trimester: As long as the cows are in good condition, cows just need to maintain body weight.

“Crop residue or swath grazing are two great feed sources that can reduce the overall cost of feeding the herd,” said Hanson.

To fully use feed while keeping nutrition at a consistent level, limit grazing is recommended. If the herd is provided the entire area at once, the cows eat all the heads and finer matter first, leaving the stems and coarse material for later. This is counterproductive at a time when their nutrition needs are increasing.

When cattle are on a cereal-based diet (which is high in phosphorus), monitor their calcium/phosphorus ratio to ensure this remains optimum. Magnesium is typically deficient in cereal crops, increasing the risk of downer cows or winter tetany. Feeding a 3:1 mineral during this time may be necessary. The addition of limestone to a 1:1 or 2:1 mineral is recommended.

Third trimester: As a cow gets closer to calving, her requirements for calcium and magnesium increase due to the growing calf and the cow’s production of colostrum. Four to eight weeks before calving, the cow’s body begins to mobilize calcium and magnesium from her bones to develop the colostrum. As a cow ages, her ability to do this decreases and high-milking cows just require more calcium and magnesium in general.

“During the third trimester, producers should start to supplement the cow’s diet with an alfalfa/grass hay to bump the calcium content in the ration and provide more protein,” said Hanson. “Legumes are high in calcium so saving that alfalfa or alfalfa/grass hay for the last months of the third trimester and into lactation is a good idea.”

Monitoring the weather is also extremely important. Days of cold weather with no extra energy provided can decrease a cow’s body condition. A 1,350-pound cow at the end of her second trimester with a body condition score of 3.5 on swath grazing can eat free choice barley/oat greenfeed without any nutritional concerns in a daytime temperature of -10 C and a 10 km/h wind. When the daytime high is -40 C with the same wind, she needs an additional five pounds of barley to maintain her body weight.

“Producers need a strategy for their feed supply at the start of the year when they have more choices and can ensure that the right feeds are provided during the best time of the feeding season,” said Hanson.

The post Have a plan to get the most out of your feed supply appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“Livestock feed supplies are going to be tight in some areas of Alberta, while in other areas, quality may be an issue,” said provincial beef extension specialist Andrea Hanson. “As such, testing feed stuffs that are to be fed this winter is important as you need to know what nutrients are available.”

The formulation of a ration depends on the nutrient composition of the forage, and the only way to accurately determine that is by sampling and testing the feed.

“Using last year’s feed tests, or even worse, using a provincial average for a feed’s nutritional content, isn’t realistic or useful,” said Hanson. “While physical attributes are part of feed quality, they don’t tell the whole story. A bright-green colour does help indicate the feed was put up with little or no rain, and that the mould level is little to none, but it doesn’t tell much more than that.

“Protein and energy content of the same hayfield can vary greatly depending on when it was cut.”

For example, brome cut very early in the season could have 18 per cent protein but only five to six per cent if cut late.

Protein requirements of a cow in second trimester of pregnancy (minimum of seven per cent) is significantly different than when she reaches the third trimester (nine per cent) or lactation (11 per cent), said forage-beef specialist Barry Yaremcio.

The most important information in a feed test is protein, energy and fibre.

“A basic forage analysis will list the moisture content of the feed stuff, energy as total digestible nutrients (TDN), net energy (NE) and/or digestible energy (DE), crude protein values as well as calcium, and phosphorus, magnesium and potassium,” said Hanson. “A basic analysis should cost less than $50 which is much less than the cost of a round bale of feed, let alone the possible savings from using fewer bales of hay mixed with lower-quality forages.

“The more advanced analytical packages will provide more details about the feed depending on what’s requested. If an early frost or crop stress have been experienced in the area and there are concerns, a nitrate test may be very beneficial as would a toxin test.”

Getting a representative sample of the feed to test is important in feeling confident with the analysis, said Hanson.

“If sampling bales, samples need to be taken from a number of bales (at least 15 to 20) from different areas in the field and then mixed into one sample,” she said.

That work is made much easier with a commercial forage sampler and some local agriculture service boards or forage associations have equipment available for loan.

“Use plastic bags to ship the feed so that an accurate moisture level can be determined. If sampling from a silage pit, rub the loose material off the face before taking the sample from packed material from the freshest part of the silage face, and from several locations in a ‘W’ or ‘M’ pattern. Mix the samples and pack tightly into a plastic bag with as little air as possible.”

If samples won’t arrive at a lab right away, they should be frozen.

“Finally, if you want a sample of the swath grazing feed, take a tub and scissors out to the field and pull various samples from the swath from locations all over the field,” said Hanson. “As the samples are pulled, cut the feed into two-inch lengths and mix in the tub. From the total sample, stuff a large zip-lock bag with a representative sample of the feed for analysis.”

The post Feed testing now can save you money appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

But feed testing and using that information to balance livestock rations is a whole lot cheaper than over- or underfeeding them.

Let’s say you’re feeding your critters some pretty good-looking hay. You’re making sure they always have lots in front of them because, for sure, you don’t want to underfeed them.

For example, let’s say that hay has a value of $200 per ton if you sell it, and its nutritional value is about 25 per cent higher than your 1,500-pound dry, pregnant cows need. That means they could be getting fed 25 per cent more than they actually need. At two per cent of body weight, each of your cows would be eating about 30 pounds of hay per day on a dry matter basis, or about 33 pounds per day as fed.

That works out to about $3.30 per cow per day. With 100 cows and a feeding period of 180 days, the total cost is $59,400.

But feeding your cows 25 per cent more hay than they need means you’re spending $2.48 per cow per day more than necessary — or $14,850 over the 180-day feeding period.

Now, this is a very simple example to show you how this works. It does not factor in additional feed for cold weather, or the costs of a mineral program.

The main point is that there are a lot of dollars to be saved by feed testing and ration balancing, especially in a year when feed prices are high. The cost of feed testing won’t come anywhere close to what overfeeding can cost you.

Now let’s take a look at underfeeding.

Let’s say the feed value of your hay is 25 per cent worse than you think it is and you’re feeding about two per cent of your cows’ body weight, or about 33 pounds/cow/day. You’re going to be shorting your cows 25 per cent of the nutrition they need (and more when the weather is cold). This could result in your cows losing a body condition score, or more over the winter. Those cows would really suffer in cold weather and would actually require considerably more nutrition for maintenance and to gain weight to be at a healthy body condition score by calving time.

Cows receiving 25 per cent less nutrition than they require will deliver calves that are small, weak, and have poor immunity to scours and pneumonia, which are just waiting to take advantage of them in those first few days or even months of their lives.

I’ve seen calf mortality rates of more than 20 per cent when cows are nutritionally underfed.

On the other hand, cows receiving well-balanced rations usually have healthy, decent-size calves with good immunity starting from high-quality colostrum. Calf mortality in this case can be three per cent or lower.

For 100 cows, losing 20 per cent of the calves versus losing three per cent of the calves is 17 calves. That’s a loss of $25,500 for the underfed cows versus the cows receiving a well-balanced ration. There’s no way that your feed testing costs would be that high.

So, basically, we’re talking about a couple hundred dollars, or less to save $14,850 by reducing overfeeding and $25,500 by feeding a well-balanced ration to your cows.

That sounds to me like a solid management choice compared to what could happen if you don’t know your feed values and don’t properly balance rations.

The post Can you really afford not to feed test? appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“In travelling around Alberta, it seems that a lot of field pea straw has been baled,” said Mark Olson, unit head of pulse crops with Alberta Agriculture and Forestry in Stony Plain.

“However, many producers selling or purchasing field pea straw for feed don’t know what the fertilizer equivalent or feed value of the straw is.”

That presents two challenges — knowing what to pay for pea straw and how to use it to formulate a satisfactory ration.

Step one is testing it, said Olson.

“Western Canadian research into the nutritive attributes of field pea straw is limited,” he said. “Results from a three-year study on over 450 field pea straw samples collected from behind the combine from various locations in south-central Alberta showed a large variability in nutritive value between years and locations. There was average of 7.5 per cent crude protein, 0.087 per cent, phosphorus, 1.38 per cent potassium, 0.133 per cent sulphur, 1.68 per cent calcium, 50 per cent acid detergent fibre (ADF) and 63 per cent neutral detergent fibre (NDF).”

Using 2015 fertilizer prices and the average nutrient values from that study, field pea straw was calculated to have an approximate fertilizer equivalent value of $30 per tonne, not counting baling and hauling, said Olson.

“The cost of baling and hauling varies greatly among producers and locations in the province,” he added.

A 2014 Alberta Agriculture survey found the custom rate for baling ranged from $9 to $15 per large round bale, with hauling adding another $8 to $10 (dependent on mileage) per bale.

“If one were to assume 1,000 pounds per large round bale, the value of that straw could easily range anywhere from $32 to $40 per bale delivered in the yard — but, of course, this is dependent on demand,” said Olson.

In terms of feeding, field pea straw quality appears to be better than cereal straw.

“It can be significantly higher in protein, but high fibre levels limit digestibility and expected feed intake. Field pea straw is primarily useful for beef cow rations where high-quality roughage is not as important as other classes of cattle. Field pea straw, when fed with higher-quality roughage, grain or a combination of both, can produce a very cost-effective ration. Generally, higher protein levels make pea straw a better match with grain than with cereal straw.”

Palatability studies with field pea straw have not been conducted.

“Anecdotal evidence provided by beef producers suggests a large range in field pea straw palatability, from cattle devouring the field pea straw to complete rejection. Mould, caused by baling straw that wasn’t dry, may be one reason animals may not consume it wholeheartedly. Additionally, some livestock producers have indicated that field pea straw sprayed with pre-harvest treatment may have lower palatability. To date there is no scientific evidence to support or refute this observation.”

Processing the straw — such as grinding or chopping it with machines like mix mills or hay busters — and mixing it with other feeds may help with palatability, he added.

The post Pea straw is a feed solution but it presents challenges appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“Protein levels in a lot of hay that was cut late or damaged by rain over the summer, is testing 25 to 30 per cent lower than normal,” said Barry Yaremcio, noting that skinny cows have serious problems during calving. “I’m getting calls on a regular basis and I’d say about 25 to 50 per cent of the hay this year is of lower quality than what the physical appearance will show.”

Feed testing is well worth the cost, said Yaremcio, who also recommends consulting a vet or fellow producer if there’s a potential problem.

The post Poor hay causing concern appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.