Beef cattle husbandry practices across Ecoregions of Canada in 2011

2015 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. C. Sheppard ◽  
S. Bittman ◽  
G. Donohoe ◽  
D. Flaten ◽  
K. M. Wittenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Forage Quality ◽  
Eastern Canada ◽  
Husbandry Practices ◽  
Winter Grazing ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Cattle Husbandry

Sheppard, S. C., Bittman, S., Donohoe, G., Flaten, D., Wittenberg, K. M., Small, J. A., Berthiaume, R., McAllister, T. A., Beauchemin, K. A., McKinnon, J., Amiro, B. D., MacDonald, D., Mattos, F. and Ominski, K. H. 2015. Beef cattle husbandry practices across Ecoregions of Canada in 2011. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 305–321. Beef production in Canada is diverse in many dimensions with numbers of cattle per operation ranging over 10 000-fold, pasture usage from nil to 100%, and types of operations from solely cow–calf to exclusively feedlot finishing. This study summarizes management information obtained from a survey conducted in 2012 (about 2011) on 1009 beef operations in Canada. Many of the results clearly differentiate the practices in the Prairies from those in Ontario and Quebec. Compared to eastern Canada, the Prairies had earlier and shorter calving seasons, higher weaning weights, utilized more winter grazing with a variety of strategies, grew and fed more barley than corn, used more seasonal feeding areas and feedlots (and hence fewer barns), and more commonly spread manure in the fall. Many of the management practices used by cow–calf operations would have low environmental impact, including extensive use of grazing even in winter, low fertilizer inputs and feeding perennial forages with a high content of legumes. Some practices such as not covering forages or manure storage structures were common and could be changed to improve forage quality and reduce manure emissions. Most forage was harvested 3–7 d after full bloom. Earlier harvest has the potential to improve forage quality, which could reduce dependence on arable crops. Finishing operations used more housing, fed more arable-land crops and less perennial forages, and practiced little grazing. Rationale regarding the adoption of many of the management strategies was reported by the producers. For example, winter grazing was adopted primarily to reduce costs and labour, but for some it was also linked to a late calving season. Preferred sources of technical information included their own experience, farm print media, producer organisations and demonstrations at field days. The survey also identified several areas in which the industry may realize improved sustainability.

Changes in land, feed, and manure management practices on beef operations in Canada between 2005 and 2011

2016 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.C. Sheppard ◽  
S. Bittman ◽  
D. Macdonald ◽  
B.D. Amiro ◽  
K.H. Ominski
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
N Fertilization ◽  
Important Change ◽  
Manure Management ◽  
Beef Industry ◽  
Eastern Canada ◽  
Environmental Implications ◽  
Winter Grazing ◽  
Manure Storage

The objective of this paper was to evaluate changes in management practices of beef cattle from 2005 to 2011. Large nationwide surveys of husbandry practices in the beef industry were conducted to represent management practices used in 2005 and 2011 across Canadian Ecoregions. The two surveys attempted to similarly represent operation types (cow–calf, backgrounding, and finishing) and size. Several statistically significant changes in management practices from 2005 to 2011 were observed: in non-feedlot operations, these included more operations with >50% legume in perennial forage, less N fertilization applied to forages, increased winter grazing of cows, and higher quality feed used as a supplement to grazing. In feedlots, there were more shelter structures, less feeding of grain and more of high-legume forages, and more frequent removal of manure. Several practices remained constant in the two surveys including use of covers for storing hay, frequency of harvesting forage, time of barn and feedlot cleanout, manure storage and practices relating to manure incorporation into soil. The large increase in use of winter grazing on the Prairies as well as in eastern Canada documented here is an important change in the industry that has both economic and environmental implications.

scholarly journals What Is the Economic Impact of Infertility in Beef Cattle?

EDIS ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Prevatt ◽  
Graham Cliff Lamb ◽  
Carl Dahlen ◽  
Vitor R.G. Mercadante ◽  
Kalyn Waters
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Economic Impact ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Economic Impacts ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Fact Sheet ◽  
Beef Cow ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
Animal Sciences

Producers cannot completely control infertility in their cow herds. However, understanding and addressing the factors that affect infertility will help producers implement management practices that can improve fertility and reduce the negative impacts of infertility on the profitability of beef cow-calf operations. This 4-page fact sheet discusses reasons why beef cows fail to become pregnant or wean a calf, identification of infertile beef cows, and economic impacts of reduced fertility and infertility in beef cattle. Written by Chris Prevatt, G. Cliff Lamb, Carl Dahlen, Vitor R. G. Mercadante, and Kayln Waters, and published by the UF/IFAS Department of Animal Sciences, revised September 2018. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/an208

A typological characterization of Canadian beef cattle farms based on a producer survey

2016 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aklilu W. Alemu ◽  
Brian D. Amiro ◽  
Shabtai Bittman ◽  
Douglas MacDonald ◽  
Kim H. Ominski
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Cattle Industry ◽  
Beneficial Management Practices ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
And Cluster Analysis ◽  
Farm Types

The diverse nature of beef production was captured by establishing a farm typology based on an extensive survey of 1005 Canadian farms in 2011. The survey provided information on the type of operation, cattle numbers, feed storage and management, manure management, land use, producer demographics and attitudes to risk, and technology adoption. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis were used to understand the relationships among variables and to statistically identify farm types. A total of 41 diagnostic variables from 133 survey questions were used to define 16 principal components explaining 68% of the variation. Cluster analysis yielded eight major clusters as distinct farm types. The largest number of farms (37%) was grouped as small-scale, part-time cow–calf operations. Mixed operations (crop–beef) were next most frequent (22%), followed by large cow–calf backgrounding (18%) and diversified cow–calf operations that included crop–beef mixed operations as well as off-farm activities (11%). Cow–calf operations that finished calves comprised 8% of the total farms surveyed. Extensive cow–calf backgrounding operations, large backgrounding/finishing operations, and large finishing operations represented the remaining 3% of the farms. The typology not only provides a strategy by which the Canadian beef cattle industry can be characterized, but also improves understanding of the diversity of farm management practices to help develop policies and beneficial management practices.

The theoretical background for the effective development of beef raising

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 1738-1749
Author(s):  
N.L. Titov ◽  
M.M. Nizamutdinov ◽  
G.S. Klychova
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Theoretical Background ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Cattle Breeding ◽  
Cattle Industry ◽  
Effective Development ◽  
Cattle Husbandry

Subject. This article explores the theoretical basis of the economic efficiency of production and classifies the performance figures of beef cattle husbandry. Objectives. The article aims to define a system of indicators of beef cattle husbandry economic efficiency. Methods. For the study, we used a comparative analysis. Conclusions and Relevance. To assess the economic efficiency of agriculture production, it is necessary to use a set of indicators by beef cattle breeding sub-sector. The system of economic performance indicators of production needs to be transformed into a summarizing indicator. The results of the study can be applied in the theory and practice of determining the economic efficiency of the beef cattle industry.

PSVII-13 Performance and environmental benefits from biochar supplementation in beef cattle grazing systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 448-449
Author(s):  
Emily Conlin ◽  
Herbert Lardner ◽  
Jennifer L Ellis ◽  
Ira B Mandell ◽  
Katharine M Wood
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Stable Form ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
Ch4 Emissions ◽  
Body Weights ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Rapid City

Abstract Worldwide, beef production systems represent a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG), and enteric methane (CH4) emissions are the primary concern. The objective of this experiment was to determine whether biochar (Oregon Biochar Solution, White City, OR) supplementation can reduce CH4 emissions from grazing beef cows. Biochar is a stable form of carbon produced through the pyrolysis of organic matter (typically forestry waste). Sixty-four cows and their calves were blocked by cow body weight and calf age, and randomly allocated to 8 paddocks, each with 8 cow-calf pairs. Using a crossover design, each paddock was assigned to one of two treatments: (1) biochar supplemented at approximately 3% of estimated dry matter intake (DMI) or (2) control (no biochar). Biochar was incorporated into a pellet containing 45% biochar, 42.5% wheat midds, 10% canola oil, and 2.5% dry molasses and fed in a portable trough once daily. Each period consisted of 28 days: 21 days for biochar adaptation and 7 days for data collection. Enteric gas emissions from each paddock were measured using C-Lock GreenFeed trailers (C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA) with pasture DMI estimated using paddock entry/exit quadrats during each sampling week. Enteric CH4 emissions expressed as g CH4/d were 249 and 260 ± 50.3 g (P ≥ 0.37) for control and biochar, respectively. Similarly, g CH4/kg DM and g CH4/kg BW were not affected (P ≥ 0.44) by biochar supplementation on pasture. Biochar supplementation did not affect estimated DMI or cow/calf body weights (P ≥ 0.15). Results suggest that biochar was ineffective for reducing methane emissions from grazing beef cows; however, measures of animal performance were not affected by biochar consumption. Further work is required to determine if type or higher inclusions of biochar can reduce CH4 emissions from beef cattle.

scholarly journals Farm practices as they affect NH3 emissions from beef cattle

2012 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 525-543 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. C. Sheppard ◽  
S. Bittman
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Best Management Practices ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Total Biomass ◽  
The West ◽  
Finishing Cattle ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Using Data

Sheppard, S. C. and Bittman, S. 2012. Farm practices as they affect NH 3 emissions from beef cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 525–543. Beef cattle farms in Canada are very diverse, both in size and management. Because the total biomass of beef cattle in Canada is larger than any other livestock sector, beef also has the potential for the largest environmental impact. In this study we estimate NH3 emissions associated with beef cattle production across Canada using data on farm practices obtained from a detailed survey answered by 1380 beef farmers in 11 Ecoregions. The farms were various combinations of cow/calf, backgrounding and finishing operations. The proportion of animals on pasture varied markedly among Ecoregions, especially for cows and calves, and this markedly affected the estimated NH3 emissions. The crop components of feed also varied among Ecoregions, but the resulting crude protein concentrations were quite consistent for both backgrounding and finishing cattle. Manure was stored longer in the west than in the east, and fall spreading of manure was notably more common in the west, especially when spread on tilled land. The estimated NH3 emissions per animal were relatively consistent across Ecoregions for confinement production, but because the proportion of animals on pasture varied with Ecoregion, so did the overall estimated NH3 emissions per animal. Temperature is a key factor causing Ecoregion differences, although husbandry and manure management practices are also important. Hypothetical best management practices had little ability to reduce overall emission estimates, and could not be implemented without detailed cost/benefit analysis.

Source apportionment of riverine nitrogen transport based on catchment modelling

1996 ◽  
Vol 33 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans B. Wittgren ◽  
Berit Arheimer
Keyword(s):  
Source Apportionment ◽  
River Basin ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Treatment Plant ◽  
River Mouth ◽  
Point Sources ◽  
Nitrogen Transport ◽  
Total N ◽  
Management Measures

Source apportionment of river substance transport, i.e. estimation of how much each source in each subbasin contributes to the river-mouth transport, is a vital step in achieving the most efficient management practices to reduce pollutant loads to the sea. In this study, the spatially lumped (at sub-catchment level), semi-empirical PULSE hydrological model, with a nitrogen routine coupled to it, was used to perform source apportionment of nitrogen transport in the Söderköpingsån river basin (882 km2) in south-eastern Sweden, for the period 1991–93. The river basin was divided into 28 subbasins and the following sources were considered: land leakage from the categories forest, arable and ley/pasture; point sources, and; atmospheric deposition on lake surfaces. The calibrated model yielded an explained variance of 60%, based on comparison of measured and modelled river nitrogen (Total N) concentrations. Eight subbasins, with net contributions to the river-mouth transport exceeding 3 kg ha−1 yr−1, were identified as the most promising candidates for cost efficient nitrogen management. The other 20 subbasins all had net contributions below 3 kg ha−1 yr−1. Arable land contributed 63% of the nitrogen transport at the river mouth and would thus be in focus for management measures. However, point sources (18% contribution to net transport) should also be considered due to their relatively high accessibility for removal measures (high concentrations). E.g., the most downstream subbasin, with the largest wastewater treatment plant in the whole river basin, had a net contribution of 16 kg ha−1 yr−1. This method for source apportionment may provide authorities with quantitative information about where in a river basin, and at which sources, they should focus their attention. However, once this is done, an analysis with higher resolution has to be performed in each of the interesting subbasins, before decisions on actual management measures can be taken.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document