January/February 1999
The
University of Georgia
|
January/February 1999 |
|
Table of Contents
Proposed Rules Changes Affect Pork Producers
Rick Jones
Professor and Extension Animal Scientist
Pork producers are waiting to see just how the proposed changes in Georgia's Rules for Water Quality Control will affect their animal feeding operations (AFO's). After almost a year of development including months of Stakeholder Committee work, the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) released a draft of the rules changes in late December.
EPD will hold public information meetings at 6:00 pm at Tifton (Rural Development Center) and Gainesville (Gainesville College) on February 16 and 17, respectively. The public is also invited to comment on the changes in writing by February 28th to EPD. The proposed rules changes with any revisions would then go to the DNR Board for approval later in the spring.
The DNR Board recently recommended that EPD put a moratorium on permits for land application of animal wastes in new AFO's until this rules change process is completed. Apparently this will affect only one permit request that was currently under consideration.
The proposed rule changes can be found at the EPD Web site ( http://www.dnr.state.ga. us/dnr/environ/ ) along with a synopsis of the revisions. At first glance, the changes seem minor, especially considering the detailed discussions and agreements which occurred in the Stakeholder Committee process. However, on closer inspection, the new rules provide a framework for extensive increases in the responsibilities of the livestock industry to protect water quality.
Initially, the rules changes will affect only a small number of operations, those with more than 1000 animal units (inventory of 2500 swine 55 lb or greater). However, provisions are also included that allow EPD to elevate any operation, regardless of size, to the same status and requirements as the larger operations. It is likely that these permitting requirements will be expanded in future years to include all operations in a mid-size category (eg. - 300-1000 animal units).
The requirement of a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan is deceivingly simple. This requirement alone can and will mean major efforts and expenses on the part of animal agriculture. Also the requirement for waste system operator certification is at first seemingly easy to accomplish. However, it will fall on some agency (Extension, NRCS, etc.) as another duty requiring extensive man-hours and costs. So the proposed rule changes are much more extensive than the casual observer would realize.
The real impact of the regulations lies
in a few key elements described vaguely by the proposal and in the open-ended
statements which gives EPD tremendous
latitude in changing the requirements on any operation. Herein lies the
cause of both comfort and fear for the livestock producer. Historically,
EPD has taken the approach of working with producers to solve animal waste
problems. This situation may be better for the livestock producer than
having EPD define specifications in great detail with potentially economically
infeasible requirements. However, without more concrete specifications,
the producer who is trying to plan ahead and satisfy the "letter of the
law" is always shooting at a moving target. There is potential for EPD
to keep raising the bar each time a producer meets the stated requirements.
In the end it may come down to the livestock industry simply trusting EPD
to be reasonable in its requirements.
The major impact of the proposed rules comes in the requirements for individual permits and general permits. Individual permits would be required for new or expanding AFO's which exceed the 1000 animal unit limit. Any operation could be required to obtain an individual permit upon notification by EPD (presumably based on poor operation of waste facilities). Requirements for this permit may include waste storage lagoons, spray irrigation fields, buffer zones, ground water monitoring wells, record keeping, periodic reporting and other provisions as determined by EPD. There is a requirement for these operations to have land disposal or treatment systems designed with the guidance of NRCS and they must implement a CNMP prior to startup.
At present (early February), the full implications and details of a CNMP have not been determined by NRCS. However, as defined in the USDA/EPA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations, a CNMP goes far beyond the context of a nutrient management plan as previously used by the livestock industry (http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/cleanwater/afo/). A CNMP is a formal written plan that includes:
* Feed management to minimize the nutrients in manure and produce a nitrogen: phosphorus ratio closer to that required by plants.
* Manure handling and storage designed to prevent water pollution and minimize odors and other public health concerns.
* Land application of manure to ensure that proper amounts of nutrients are applied in a way that does not cause harm to the environment or public health. This involves proper nutrient balance and timing and methods of application.
Land management involving a broad range of conservation and cropping practices and use of buffer/filter strips to intercept, store and utilize nutrients that may migrate from fields where manure is applied.
Record keeping includes data on the amount of manure produced and the ultimate use of the nutrients (when, where, amounts). Soil and manure analysis data are also incorporated into the records.
* Other utilization options include alternative uses of manure such as composting and generation of bio-gases for power generation or heating. These alternatives must be designed and implemented to meet all existing regulations.
A CNMP encompasses all of the elements of responsible waste management and, in principle, negates the need for most if not all other regulations. Currently, a major issue being considered in defining CNMP's is the decision of whether to base plans on nitrogen and/or phosphorus. This debate is not as simple as most novices believe.
General permits would be required of existing, well-operated AFO's with an inventory greater than 1000 animal units. Although ground water monitoring and reporting would not be required, proper facilities and record keeping would be necessary as in individual permit operations. A CNMP must be implemented within 36 months and operator certification would be needed. Any existing operation, regardless of size, could be required to comply with general permit requirements.
In summary, the changes in Water Quality
Control rules represent a major step for bringing larger livestock operations
up to date on protection of the environment. Once these steps have been
implemented, the stage is set for adapting this experience to smaller operations.
The rules also provide EPD with leverage on smaller operations immediately
if they have significant waste management problems.
The Swine Industry: Where do I go from here?
Tim Schell
Extension Swine Specialist
As the swine industry emerges from what
has been classified as a disastrous 1998, its time to consider what will
happen in 1999 and plan accordingly. Now is the time to carefully examine
how last year affected your business and plan ahead. Do not dismiss last
year as simply a bad year and tell yourself to do better this year. A detailed
examination of how events affected your business last year will help you
make informed decisions in the future. Now is the time to review production
records, financial statements, market forecasts and business alternatives.
Reviewing the impact of 1998 and planning for 1999 can greatly improve
your chances of profiting this year and in the future.
Reviewing Production
As painful as it may seem, reviewing your production records for 1998 is a good starting point for planning the new year. Each of the factors that affect your profitability should be reviewed. Do not dismiss your records as simply being off because it was a bad year. Evaluate each individual factor and then attempt to determine the impact of the weak market situation. For example, look at your conception rate for the year, then if it is lower than expected or desired decide whether it is low because of the market situation (you may have decided to eliminate one A.I. breeding) or is it low because of a management factor (poor A.I. technician). Similarly, evaluate your number of pigs per litter. If the number is lower than expected, determine whether it is because of the market (maybe you used old boars instead of purchasing semen or buying new boars) or is it low because of sow management (fed improperly). Calculate your feed efficiency. Was if affected by feeding an alternative diet? Also evaluate the number of days pigs were in the nursery or on the farm and determine if market conditions influenced pig flow (no where to sell pigs). Examine all of the production variables that you can based on the records you keep. It is important to be honest in these evaluations because accurate information can help make good decisions in the future.
Once you have reviewed your production
numbers and estimated how they were influenced by last year's decisions,
compare your production numbers to those of others. Remember, you are starting
the planning process, therefore you need to have an accurate estimate of
what your production numbers should be for you to be profitable. Be careful
to compare your records to records with similar production types. However,
keep in mind that you are competing with producers of all production types
and therefore, you can not afford to have your production efficiency too
far from standard averages. Table 1. shows some average production numbers
for producers in the U.S. during 1997. These should be used as benchmarks
to compare your production and not necessarily as goals for your operation
as facilities, labor and management may be different.
Reviewing Financial Statements
Again, this may seem like a painful experience, but you must evaluate how your production decisions influenced your profitability. You should review your financial information with an experienced expert such as your banker, accountant or financial record keeper. Generally, you should examine the cash flow in as many areas of your operation as possible. Evaluate the income and expenses for your sow herd, nursery, and grow/finish operations separately if possible. Table 1 shows some cost of production averages. Use the guidance of your financial advisor to help you evaluate your economic indicators of efficiency.
The next step is to review how your production management influences your profitability. For example, how does seven pigs per litter affect your profits compared to eight? A review of your production records and finances together can identify those production areas that need to be improved, those that need to be eliminated and those that are working well.
Table 1. U.S. Production Averages in 1997.
| Measurement | Average |
|
|
8.67 |
| Litters per year per sow | 1.72 |
| Farrowing rate | 80% |
| Preweaning mortality | 13.5% |
| Non-productive sow days | 70 |
| Days to market | 190 |
| Health products and services per animal | $ 4.50 |
| Grow/finish feed efficiency (lbs feed / lb body weight gain) | 3.25 |
| Cost of finishing market pigs (50 lbs to 250 lbs) | $ 39.61/cwt |
| Cost of producing a 50 lb feeder pig | $ 45.43 |
Market Forecasts
After you have identified the strengths and weaknesses of your operation and understand your production costs, the next step is to evaluate what to expect in the new year. The government outlook for 1999 released on January 26, expects hog prices to average in the mid-$30's. There will be continued pressure on slaughter capacity for the first two quarters with an expected slaughter of over 50 million head during the first half of the year. However, the pig crop is expected to drop during the first two quarters which will result in reduced marketings during the second two quarters. Market prices are expected to rise from the mid $20's early in the year to the mid $40's late in the year. Feed prices are expected to drop with rising stocks of corn and soybeans. The average corn price is expected to be $1.80-$2.10/ bushel compared to $2.43/ bushel last year. Soybean meal prices are expected to average $130-$150/ ton compared to $186/ ton last year. Other factors to watch include an expected decrease in per capita pork consumption, a 2-4% decline in retail pork prices, a 10% increase in pork exports and a year end decline in frozen pork stocks.
Use this market outlook information to
project income and expenses for the new year and to plan your management
strategy. But, remember these are only projections. They are formulated
by experts, but you need to be aware of your market conditions. If you
do not have a local market to send pigs to, your market price may be substantially
lower. A drought will cause corn and soybean prices to be higher than projected
and would raise feed costs. Consequently, use outlook information to plan
for the new year, but apply them to your own conditions.
Putting it all together
Once you have examined your production
and financial records and have an idea of how efficiently your operation
runs and have looked at the market outlook for the next year, it's time
to put a plan together. The plan will depend on what you have learned so
far. Some of you will decide that based on past financial performance and
future market expectations it may be time to exit the swine industry temporarily
or permanently. Another group may find that improving just a few areas
of production can have positive economic benefits. Others may find that
their production efficiency strengths are in producing weanling pigs and
the operation should be adjusted accordingly. Still others may decide that
contract finishing is the best alternative. Whatever your situation, use
your production and financial records to help you make your decision. Evaluate
all the alternatives and then design a plan to implement your strategy.
Finally, remember to develop a plan with some flexibility because economic
forecasts and production levels are never guaranteed.
Preventative
Medicine for Bacteria Disease
in Channel Catfish
Gary J. Burtle
University of Georgia
Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton
The bacterial disease, ESC (for Enteric Septicemia of Catfish), is also known as the "hole-in-the-head" disease. ESC is caused by the bacterium Edwardsiella ictaluri, which is spread from catfish to catfish through the water or by feces of birds which eat infected catfish. When catfish are stricken with ESC, feed conversion efficiency is poor, fish quit eating, and eventually a large portion of the population (sometimes over 90%) dies.
Clinical signs of ESC include fish hanging listlessly at the water surface in a "head-up-tail-down" position, fish spinning in circles, hemorrhage or inflammation in the skin under the jaw and operculum sometimes turning the underside of the catfish red, hemorrhage at the base of fins, small circular lesions on the sides of the catfish, and in advanced cases a red or white lesion in the top of the head. Do not wait to see the head lesions before suspecting ESC infection. Often the catfish die before the disease progresses to that point.
Antibiotics including RometR (potentiated sulfonamide) and TerramycinR (oxytetracycline) can be effective treatments if the catfish are feeding well enough to obtain an effective dose. However, more often than not the catfish that are infected with ESC are not feeding well and antibiotic treatments administered through feeding are not effective. Those catfish which survive the ESC epizootic do not grow or convert feed as well as noninfected catfish.
In research with ESC at Auburn University, commercially available vaccine was tested and found to be effective as a protection from ESC. Catfish fry were immersion vaccinated at 12 days of age then fed a booster 2 months later. A sample of fingerling catfish were removed from the ponds for challenge with ESC bacteria at relatively high levels by adding the bacteria to the water in their tanks. Fingerlings that did not receive vaccine died at an alarming rate of 96.7%. Vaccinated fingerlings had only 6.7% losses after ESC challenge. In the ponds over a 6 month period between stocking with fry and harvest, 70.8% of the fingerling catfish survived if vaccinated by immersion plus a single oral booster and only 42.7% of the fish survived if not vaccinated. Also, vaccinated catfish fingerlings grew an average of 45% faster than non-vaccinated fingerlings.
Recently, outbreaks of ESC in two fingerling ponds at the Coastal Plain Experiment Station resulted in different degrees of loss. Catfish fingerlings had not been vaccinated and oxytetracycline medicated feed was used to administer antibiotic. One pond in which fish feeding behavior was poor lost 80% of the initial stocking number. The other pond which began eating the medicated feed had less than 20% losses of catfish fingerlings. Therefore, even with medicated feed, losses can be extreme as a result of ESC epizootics. Since 1996, catfish fry at the Coastal Plain Experiment Station have been vaccinated by immersion with an autogenous vaccine using bacteria isolated at Tifton. Over the past three years, the number of ESC cases have declined, although ESC has caused catfish deaths. The number of ponds affected by ESC infection indicates that stressing the fish is very important to the occurrence of ESC at Tifton. Low dissolved oxygen, overcrowding in ponds, and heavy feeding during cool snaps have been associated with ESC occurrence.
Vaccines administration to fish or survival of ESC epizootics causes the catfish to produce antibodies to ESC. Over time, this level of antibodies is reduced and may fall below a threshold where the ESC can overcome the immune response of the catfish. Further research has indicated that more than one booster may be required to keep the antibody titer in catfish above the threshold of effective immunity. So far, the frequency of boosters required to fully protect a catfish population during the 18 to 24 months of production is experimental. However, current recommendations are to administer the vaccine by immersion then wait 45 to 60 days for booster administration. Booster vaccine should be fed 30 days prior to ESC season. Since ESC season is not entirely predictable, a second booster vaccination should be considered in the spring following initial vaccination.
New, more effective vaccines are under
development by USDA and others. Commercial testing on fish farms is underway
this year. Results are expected to provide protection from ESC in a high
percentage of cases. However, the best protection currently available is
good management in order to reduce stress to the catfish, especially during
cool weather.
Perennial Peanut Hay As A Roughage For Horses
Gary Heusner
Extension Animal Scientist - Equine
A number of horse owners and managers have been asking about perennial
peanut hay as a hay source for horses. Perennial peanut hay should not
be confused with "peanut hay" that is the aftermath from harvested peanuts.
Perennial peanut is a high-quality persistent tropical forage legume which
can be grazed or fed as a harvested hay. Limited research has been done
to determine the digestibility of perennial peanut hay in the horse. Dr.
Sandi Lieb and colleagues with the University of Florida in 1993 reported
on some work comparing perennial peanut (Florigiaze variety), coastal bermudagrass,
bahiagrass, and alfalfa hays. The results indicted that rhizomal perennial
peanut hay is more closely equivalent to alfalfa than to the grass hays
studied in nutrient content and digestibility. For this study the crude
protein content, Neutral Detergent Fiber %, and digestible energy content
are listed in Table 1 along with an estimated relative feeding value based
on crude protein, neutral detergent fiber content, digestible energy, and
expected acceptability.
TABLE 1. Nutrient Contents and Relative Feed Values of
Hays Tested (100% Dry Matter Basis)
| Perennial Peanut | Alfalfa | Bermuda | Bahia | |
| Crude Protein % | 15.9 | 19.7 | 14.4 | 7.0 |
| Neutral Detergent Fiber % | 51.0 | 42.8 | 76.7 | 77.4 |
| Digestible Energy Meal/Ib | 1.14 | 1.25 | 0.88 | 0.67 |
| Estimated Relative Feed Values | 92 | 100 | 73 | 56 |
Comparing the nutrient contents of the hays, it is easy to see that based on the nutrients the two legumes (perennial peanut and alfalfa) are more similar in protein, fiber, and energy content. In this particular study there was a wide variation in the quality of the grass hays (Bermuda and Bahia). This is typical of hays that are produced and sold as horse hays. That is, there is a wide variation in nutrient content of hays due to stage of maturity, fertility and conditions of harvesting. The Estimated Relative Feeding Values are Based upon a high quality Alfalfa hay being assigned a value of 100 based on nutrient content and acceptability. Acceptability is defined loosely as how much a horse likes the hay and will consume when fed ad libitum (twenty-four access).
Table 2 provides nutrient contents and relative feeding values of hays based on nutrient and fiber contents. It was reported in the Florida study that the perennial peanut hay was actually consumed at higher rates than the other hays. Peanut hay was consumed at the rate of 3.18% of the horses' body weight whereas alfalfa was consumed at 2.45%, Bermudagrass 2.77%, and Bahiagrass 1.55% of the horses' body weight.
The bottom line is that Perennial Peanut
Hays is a legume that will work very well as a forage source for horses.
Caution must be used when switching to peanut hay from a grass hay. Horses
should be gradually switched over to prevent digestive disturbances just
like any change in feed should be made over a period of seven to ten days.
TABLE 2. Relative feeding values of hays for horses
(100% DM basis)
| Hay | Crude Prot % | NDF % | C. Fiber
% |
DE mcal/Ib | Relative Fed Value |
| Alfalfa | < 20 | > 30 | > 23 | 1.2 | 100 |
| Alfalfa | 16 - 18 | 40 - 47 | 24 - 28 | 1.1 | 92 |
| Alfalfa | < 15 | > 47 | > 28 | 1.0 | 83 |
| Bermuda | > 12 | < 65 | < 30 | 0.9 | 75 |
| Bermuda | 8 - 12 | 66 -72 | 31 - 35 | 0.8 | 67 |
| Bermuda | < 7 | > 72 | > 35 | 0.7 | 58 |
| Bahia | > 9.5 | < 68 | < 32 | 0.75 | 63 |
| Bahia | 7 -9.5 | 68 -72 | 32 - 36 | 0.7 | 58 |
| Bahia | < 7 | > 76 | > 36 | 0.6 | 50 |
Back
to Basics
Castration and Dehorning
Ronnie Silcox
Extension Animal Scientist
Last winter a survey was distributed to county extension agents in Georgia to use in county cattlemen's meetings. Surveys were completed and returned by 875 cattlemen from 126 counties. At about the same time the Georgia Beef Project Survey was being developed, Extension Specialist at Oklahoma State University were also conducting a survey. Oklahoma Extension personnel recorded prices and characteristics of 15,473 sale lots that include 31,000 head of cattle in 15 auction markets during October, 1997. Why is an Oklahoma survey relevant to Georgia? Most of our feeder calves go to feedlots in that area of the country.
In the Georgia Survey, only 6% producers with crossbred cattle said that they did not castrate any calves. Nine percent of Georgia producers surveyed castrated fewer than 50% of their bull calves. In Oklahoma auction markets bull calves were discounted $3.56/cwt as compared to steers. Most of these cattle were in the 400-600 pound weight range.
Bulls are discounted for several reasons. Packers do not want bulls. While carcasses on young bulls are not necessarily bad, bulls do tend to fight more in loading and hauling. Due to this extra stress, a load of bulls will normally produce more dark cutting carcasses than a load of steers and for that reason are worth less to the packer. Because packers put heavy discounts on bulls, it makes sense to feed steers.
When bulls are sent to feedyards, they are castrated. The stress on 500-700 pound cattle is much greater than on young calves. When animals enter the feedyard they are already under stress. Studies on castration at this time shows reduction in rate of gain for the first 90 days from .15 to .35 Lb./day. The added stress can also double the rate of sickness and increase death loss. There is good reason for buyers to discount bull calves. Georgia produces can increase value on calves by castrating as early as possible. Level of stress is related to age of calf. Castrating and implanting calves at birth is the best route.
In the survey of Georgia producers about 17% did not dehorn. Cattlemen with 40 or less cows were more likely to use polled cattle than larger producers, while larger producers were more like to cut or burn horns than smaller producers. In the Oklahoma survey horned steers were discounted $3.03/cwt compared to polled steers.
As with bulls, horned cattle are discounted for a simple reason: Packers don't want them. Horned animals cause more carcass bruises during hauling. Modern packing plants use hide pullers that pull the hide over the head. Horns have to be cut off before the hide can be pulled. The open hole were the horn was can allow dirt form the hide to fall into the head resulting in condemned heads. All of this increase costs or decreases value. This gets passed back as discounts on horned cattle.
At the feeder calf level, the stress of dehorning a 500-700 pound steer results in deceased gains and an increased chance of sickness. As with castration, the best time to dehorn is at an early age.
Dehorning and castration are two very basic management practices. Based on a survey of Georgia Cattlemen, there is room to improve value of feeder cattle for some of our producers and to improve the reputation of Georgia cattle in the feedlot. Castration and dehorning are two back-to-basics management practices that need attention.