EDITORIAL: QFA EDITORIAL

The following editorial is the first of a seven-part series of commentaries by QFA Vice-president Chris Judd, entitled “The Seven Bank Accounts of a Farmer.” It’s not only money that makes a successful agricultural operation, says Judd, but also education, seed, soil, family, neighbours and politics, which make up any farm’s healthy “bank accounts.” In this issue, Chris talks about the very foundation of a successful farm—having a balanced “soil bank.”

The Seven Bank Accounts of a Farmer — # 1: Soil bank account

Chris Judd

QFA Vice-president

When agricultural producers get together to talk, it’s not at all uncommon for at least one envious person to comment, “I’d sure like to see his bank account” when conversation gets around to an older, established farmer in the community. But like a good card player, any older farmer probably has a few aces up his sleeve—a few helpful cards he’ll only show when the game is over.

This series will give a little insight into the many different “bank accounts” we farmers have. Or, to put it another way, the different trick cards all producers hold in the game of farming. First, I’d like to talk about the foundation of our farm—the soil bank account that is our land.

Most successful farmers have a good idea of what kind of shape their soil is in. They know the pH level of all their fields, they know their Ca/Mg/K ratio, their CEC, their P/Al ratio and their organic matter. And they’re aware of their fields’ base saturation.

Most of us can also walk into a field and tell what its lacking (and what it has in excess) simply by observing the type of weeds that grow. (If you’re not able to do this, get your hands on a copy of “Weeds and Why They Grow,” an excellent book by crops specialist Jay L. McCaman.) Similarly, most successful farmers also know their soil drainage, and what corner needs “another run.”

But at the same time, some unscrupulous farmers will “pull down” their soil bank for the last three or four years before selling the farm. On a clay-loam farm they might do this for the last ten years. Then, the unlucky producer who buys the farm might find out that it may take up to $1,000 per acre to bring that farm back into profitable production.

Problems and bad farming practices can deplete your soil bank at every turn. How many times have you seen an impatient farmer drag his corn picker through the mud with two or three tractors after a very wet fall because he couldn’t wait till spring to take off his grain corn? That can ruin a good field’s ability to grow properly for perhaps twenty years.

And how many of us have seen a “V” ripper being used to break up hard pan that is probably in a field with a very low calcium saturation?

What is an abused farm soil worth compared to one that was properly looked after? Maybe the best way to answer that question is to ask: what is a full soil bank account worth compared to an empty one?

CFIA regulations raise many questions

Andrew McClelland

Advocate Staff Reporter

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is ramping up efforts to eliminate any chance of BSE occurring in Canadian cattle with regulations that will increase paperwork and add administrative tasks for beef producers.

As of July 12, 2007, feed containing any quantity of specified risk materials, or SRM, can no longer be fed to livestock. SRM are any nervous system tissue from cattle over 30 months old, such as the skull, brain, eyes, spinal cord and others. From cattle of all ages, the distal ileum—a portion of the small intestine—is also classified as SRM. (For a detailed description of all SRM found in dead cattle please see the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec’s article in the June 2007 issue of the Advocate.)

“The main species that is subject to BSE is cattle,” says Dr. El Mehdi Haddou, veterinary program specialist for the CFIA, who gave a presentation to UPA and QFA members regarding the new regulations in Lachute on September 19. “But in our industry we can’t be 100 per cent sure that there won’t be cross-contamination. That’s why we’ve found it necessary to eliminate all SRMs—all nervous system tissue. But there can even be slight levels of infectivity in non-SRM tissues.”

The enhanced CFIA regulations give beef producers all the more reason to tag cattle early in their lives and replace the tags when necessary for easier traceability and record-keeping.

Perhaps most worrisome for Canadian beef producers is the government’s new rule that requires a permit from the CFIA to handle, transport or dispose of cattle carcasses and certain cattle tissues. According to the CFIA’s official release on the regulations, “if cattle die during transportation, the carcass is considered to be SRM. Therefore, a permit is required to bring the carcass back to the premises of origin or to a facility in Canada that is permitted by the CFIA to store, process or dispose of SRM.”

That has left many beef producers wondering how they are supposed to apply to the CFIA for a permit when they are on the road with deadstock in their trailer. Currently, permits applications can be made by telephone, and CFIA employees say that the service will soon be accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week. (See page 2 for a list of CFIA telephone numbers to call to obtain emergency slaughter permits and transportation permits.)

“That legislation is directed mainly at large transporting companies,” says Haddou. “Deadstock bovines are an SRM, but we realize that most farmers are only taking their cattle a very short distance and that those animals will be in good shape.”

The CFIA acknowledges that the new changes will put greater demands on producers. As compliance with the regulations depends largely on the good will of beef farmers, CFIA staff are available to attend producers meetings anywhere in the province to help clarify the new policy and answer any questions.

“Before we talked to the CFIA presenters, I thought the regulations were going to be a complete and total disaster,” says QFA executive board member John McCart, who attended the September 19 meeting. “But now, if you apply for the transportation permit, you should be all right as long as your butcher shop is equipped to handle a cow over 30 months old. If your local butcher shop doesn’t want to touch it, you’re out to lunch.”

The good news is that deadstock remaining on a farm are not subject to any CFIA requirements. Cattle disposed of on the farm can still be buried according to municipal and provincial standards. However, CFIA permits are required to transport edible carcasses in any form, including deadstock, and to transport edible carcasses containing SRM for cutting and processing. In addition, records of all SRM and deadstock movement must be kept for ten years.

More paperwork is required of beef producers who now must keep records of feed and feed ingredient purchases for two years. Records must specify the supplier’s name and address, the date of purchase and the amount purchased. The feed ban continues to apply. Packages of feed containing prohibited material now carry a clear warning statement.

“For me, personally, I can’t see why anyone would feed animal by-products back to their animals,” says McCart. “I know it was done in the past with bloodmeal, and perhaps when feeding your animals a different species like fishmeal, but the enhanced feed ban won’t mean much for those of us who never fed our animals that kind of feed in the first place.”

At the time of the announcement, then-minister of agriculture Chuck Strahl noted that these “new measures will help increase access to foreign markets, and support Canada's status as a controlled risk country for BSE from the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).” Strahl’s prediction turns out to be correct: on July 14, 2007 the U.S. federal appeals court overturned an injunction keeping Canadian cattle over 30 months of age from crossing the border.

The CFIA states that the federal government is investing $80 million in provincial SRM disposal programs. Canada has had six cases of BSE, the most recent occurring in May of 2007.

QFA welcomes African farm leaders

Pamela Ledoux

Advocate Staff Reporter

For the first time in their history, the QFA and UPA-DI joined forces and co-hosted a capacity building program aimed at farm leaders from English-speaking countries in Africa earlier this month. Eight delegates from Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi and Zambia spent two weeks on Canadian soil, participating in a wide variety of agricultural adventures in Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec.

UPA-DI, the UPA’s international development subsidiary, has organized such programs before, but always only for French-speaking African countries. “Everyone from Africa or Quebec who has taken part ends up speaking highly of the opportunity and recommending it to their friends and colleagues,” said Ivan Hale, QFA’s executive director.

The group, which included seven men and one woman, were here to learn about the Canadian agriculture model and about the marketing systems we have put into place to help farmers sell their produce. All participants work for farmer groups, either at the sub-regional or national level or representing a specific production type. Although their job descriptions sound very bureaucratic, all eight participants had very close ties to agriculture, with many of them still farming themselves. It is very common in Africa for everyone to either farm or have a close relative who farms to ensure regular and inexpensive food provision. The average farm size in their region is half a hectare or less.

Wow! Canada is far!

The African visitors arrived in Canada after more than 24-hours of travel time, some with more than one change of airplane. “Wow! Canada is FAR!” was the general consensus.

They spent their first night in Montreal then headed to the Ottawa/Gatineau region with Ivan Hale and myself for their first week of activities.

The first day began with an introduction to Canada and Canadian agriculture from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture’s (CFA) president Bob Friesen and executive director, Justin To. The group also met with representatives from Agriculture Canada and toured the Central Experimental Farm.

Subsequent days featured meetings with local cooperatives such as the St-Albert Cheese Cooperative in St-Albert, Ontario (who make and sell their own cheese), the Embrun Coop in Embrun, Ontario (which sells a wide variety of farm equipment, fertilizers, seeds, feed, and even has a local coop grocery store!), and the Fitzroy Beef Marketing Initiative in Fitzroy, Ontario (which slaughters and markets their own beef at local farmers markets). They also toured Kemptville College, met with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Agri-food Roundtable of the Outaouais, and representatives from MAPAQ.

Bio-safety first!

But they wanted to get to see the good stuff too! Because our visitors were arriving from foreign countries, the QFA had to enforce the Canadian International Development Agency’s (CIDA) foot-and-mouth-disease safety protocol which required that they all buy a new pair of shoes and spend at least four days in Canada before setting foot on a farm. And even then, they were required to wear very “stylish” bio-safety plastic shoe covers. Upon their return to their countries, their shoes will also have to be extensively cleaned to ensure no diseases take the trip home with them.

Once protocol was met, we visited Gladcrest Farms in Shawville, Quebec, owned and operated by Chris Judd, QFA’s vice-president, his wife, Jeannie and their two sons Robin and Scott who were nice enough to give us the full tour! This incredibly modern dairy farming facility impressed our visitors very much.

Other farm tours included touring Gib Drury’s Hays Pride Farm, in Lascelles, Quebec. The QFA president even hosted the group for an evening BBQ which featured live entertainment from an authentic Scottish bagpiper, an instrument most of our visitors had never heard before and were quite enthusiastic to try!

They also visited Christophe Marineau’s exotic mushroom farm in Farrellton, Quebec, and Christian Bellaar-Spruyt’s sheep farm in Rupert, Quebec.

Forum on Market Access Mechanisms

The second week of their visit was spent in Montreal with a three-day conference at the UPA headquarters with researchers from Quebec and abroad on agricultural marketing mechanisms.

The forum heard about experiences with production of a wide range of commodities such as coffee, tea, rice, vanilla and cacao under different types of supply management. While it was agreed that no “one size fits all” there are nevertheless a number of basic principles that should be maintained in any regulatory system to ensure equity and fair returns to farmers.

Although our participants were saddened they didn’t get to see any snow (well, perhaps only half-saddened), we did “canadianize” them by taking them for a good cup of Tim Horton’s coffee and some maple donuts!

Our African visitors were delighted with their experience and say that QFA members are welcome in East Africa anytime! They have requested that QFA stay in close touch in the years ahead.

Will t he Bloc decide the fate of the prairie farmer?

Barry Wilson

Special to the Advocate

On the face of it, the situation is absurd. Politics indeed do make for strange bedfellows. As Parliament started a new session of minority Conservative rule in mid-October, the Bloc Québécois suddenly emerged as a key player in the Conservative campaign to end the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly over sales of western Canadian barley into export markets or for domestic human consumption. That is not a misprint. At least in the short term, the future of a 72-year-old western Canadian grain-marketing agency depends on the decision of a political party from Quebec whose mission is to break up the country that created and sustains the CWB.

The reason is parliamentary mathematics. Last summer, a federal court in Calgary ruled that Conservative attempts to end the barley monopoly through regulation were illegal. The only way to do it is to change the CWB Act in Parliament. And since both Liberals and New Democrats support the monopoly, the only way the government could push through amendments is with the support of the BQ.

In August after the federal court ruling, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told prairie farmers that one way or the other, the government would end the monopoly. One way, of course, would be to win a majority in the next election so the CWB Act can be amended without opposition support. The other way, he mused, would be to try to win BQ support for an amendment in this Parliament. Immediately, defenders of the board declared victory. Surely the BQ—great defenders of supply management and under pressure from the UPA to see the CWB single desk in the same light as supply management single desks—would never agree to support undermining a farmer marketing board.

But Conservatives have an interesting argument to put to the Bloc. What is it about a referendum result they don’t accept? A barley producer referendum last winter saw 62 percent of those voting support either getting the board out of barley altogether or ending the monopoly so the CWB would have to compete against the grain trade for barley supplies. Board defenders denounced the referendum as bogus and undemocratic and insist the 62 per cent is inaccurate because the question is misleading. The CWB could not survive without the monopoly so the question offered a false choice.

But again, the Bloc is familiar with fuzzy or misleading questions—and in the case of Quebec sovereignty, insists that a one-vote victory would be a mandate to separate. No matter what the question, voters know the issue is Quebec sovereignty, they argue. Well, Conservatives will say, farmers on the Prairies understood the issue was the board monopoly and many of them simply don’t believe the board will disappear if it loses its monopoly.

A Bloc decision to refuse to accept a farmer referendum results surely would be fodder for Conservatives to use against the BQ in Quebec. Are these guys really democrats? And there is a precedent for the BQ standing with the Conservatives against wheat board defenders. Last year over the vehement opposition of the CWB and its defenders, the minority Conservatives moved in the House of Commons to make the board subject to the access-to-information law. The Bloc supported them in the name of transparency and it happened. So while the prospect of Quebec separatists deciding the fate of a prairie farmer marketing board seems absurd, it also is logical in the current political climate.

Now whether the Alberta-based prime minister could defend on his home turf using separatist allies to undermine a Canadian institution is another question.

Still, on the CWB file, Harper appears to be a politician who believes the end justifies the means.

Barry Wilson grew up on a West Quebec farm and has spent more than a quarter century covering agricultural, rural and trade issues on Parliament Hill as National Correspondent for The Western Producer newspaper.

DEVOTION TO DAIRY

The road to good health

Paul Meldrum

Dairy Supervisor

Macdonald Campus Farm

A dairy calf will pretty much double its weight in the first two months of life and will double that weight again by five to six months of age if properly cared for. The road to good health and performance begins with good hygiene at birth and early feeding of colostrum as discussed in last month’s column. How we treat the calf from this point will determine how quickly we get her into the milking herd and how well she will produce. The approach can be divided into three areas: housing, feeding and regimen.

Housing calves in hutches outdoors has become the most popular method—and for good reason. The air is always fresh, the calves are not exposed to bacteria from older animals against which they have no immunity, and the cost is relatively cheap. The drawback of course is that someone has to go out to tend to these calves in all kinds of weather, including, cold, wind, rain and snow. The benefit is that calves rarely get sick. In 25 years of using hutches, I have only had to treat a respiratory problem once. Conversely, calves kept in the dairy barn and tied in front of or behind the cows are living in a mixing bowl of bacteria-laden air which is often not vented from the barn frequently enough. Young lungs get infected, and even if treated, there can be scar tissue in the lungs which will adversely affect the growth rate and eventually milk production. Some producers have built calf barns or rooms with separate ventilation systems. These can be functional but are certainly more costly. No matter what type of housing, the calf must be clean and dry. Dirty, wet bedding equals sick calves. In winter, straw is much preferable to shavings because it reflects body heat better. In severely cold weather at the Macdonald Campus farm, we will put calf coats on the younger animals and all calves are outfitted with ear muffs custom made by one of our employees to protect from frost-bite.

Cold weather also presents challenges when it comes to feeding. You will have to increase the amount fed by up to 20 per cent in cold weather to provide enough energy for the calf to keep itself warm and continue to grow. At a younger age, this extra energy should come from a feeding of milk at midday. For older calves, an increase in grain will do the job. We like to introduce grain to the calf at three days of age. They may not eat much, but we keep grain in a pail in the hutch feeder and put some in the calf’s mouth three times a day. A sprinkle of milk replacer on top of the grain will encourage a calf to put its head down into the pail to eat. This also helps when we train a calf to drink from a pail at the end of the first week.

I am incredibly fussy when it comes to the quality of calf grower. It should be moist, smell good, have an anti coccidia agent, be 20 per cent protein or more and be delivered fresh. It has to smell so good that you almost want to eat it yourself! Calves should be consuming at least two kilograms of grower by week seven at which time you can introduce a nice soft second cut grass hay. If you feed hay earlier than this, they may leave the grain to fill up on hay (hopefully your hay is that good!) which will result in poor rumen development. Weaning is always debatable. A rule of thumb is to wean when the calf is consuming 2.5 kg of calf grower/day. This can sometimes be achieved at six weeks, and should be easily done at eight weeks. Calves weaned at four weeks will survive but they will not thrive.

Remember, the goal is to raise a healthy heifer who can start producing milk at 24 months or earlier. After the calf is weaned, we give them a week on hay, grain and water (water should be made available by about the third week—earlier in summer), before moving to a super hutch. This means the stress from weaning does not coincide with the stress from moving. It is important to try to limit incidents of stress to one source at a time. So when we de-horn, we don’t vaccinate. When we vaccinate, we don’t wean. When we move a calf, we don’t vaccinate etc. etc. It is very easy to overwhelm a calf with too many stressors at the same time. As for vaccinating, this is a no-brainer. Your vet can put you on a program and stick to it!

Finally, one of the best things you can do to raise healthy calves is to observe them. Watch for droopy ears, scours, depression, infected navels and act quickly. A good pair of eyes and a thermometer can go a long way to nipping a problem in the bud and keeping your calves on a smooth road to good health and profitable production.

Paul Meldrum is Dairy Supervisor at McGill University’s Macdonald Campus Farm. In the past, he has run successful dairy operations in both Ontario and New York State, hosted and produced CJOH TV’s “Valley Farmer,” and has been heard on agriculture reports for CBC Radio Noon in Ottawa.

Is a grazing coach for you?

Hubert McClelland

Special to the Advocate

About ten livestock producers from the Outaouais–Laurentides region have the opportunity to benefit from a unique experience in grazing management this year. They are eligible to participate in a program new to Quebec that helped several hundred producers last year in Ontario and the western provinces. The program is called the National Sustainable Grazing Mentorship program.

The program works by having producers subscribe a modest fee to join. This entitles the grazer to 16 hours of visits and accompaniment from a reputable, experienced producer who has proven his or her excellence in intensive grazing management. Such producers are rare, but can be found in every province and region. Your grazing mentor will visit your farm to help you decide and plan the best approach to improving your pasture’s productivity. The idea is not to tell you how to do your grazing management, but to help you choose the best path in achieving your goals in planning and improving your grazing system. The goal is sustainable grass management and low-cost, profitable livestock production.

This help can take the form of suggesting improved watering methods, establishing better fencing systems and learning when to not overgraze. Using your farm plans, your mentor can suggest paddock designs to minimize fencing costs, improve cattle traffic flow from paddock to paddock, eliminate farm lane problems or extend the grazing season. Having learned the management of the growth of grass in abundant years and drought conditions, the mentor will suggest how best to manage your forage resources according to the soil types and the forage species on your farm.

What does the program cost? $100 covers the registration fee 16 hours of visits and telephone consultation—including your mentor’s travel to your farm. The program will pay the mentor a total of $700 for their efforts. After decades of seeking out help from professional consultants such as accountants, notaries, agronomes, nutritionists and engineers on specific areas of farm operation, producers may find it unusual to have other producers advising on grazing management. However, grazing management is a complex subject that is not specific to any one area of expertise. It is management intensive in that it requires knowledge of the forage species, of livestock behaviour, of soils and soil fertility, of electric fencing and water systems with particular knowledge of managing grass growth. Only producers who have managed a herd through several seasons of both drought and abundance, of good markets and poor ones, by grazing too severely or by not grazing soon enough, can really provide expertise intensive rotational grazing management.

To sign-up, contact Hubert McClelland, agronome and coordinator of the National Sustainable Grazing Mentorship program for the Gatineau Outaouais Beef Improvement Club at 819-827-1793 or by e-mail: hubert.mcclelland@sympatico.ca

Hubert McClelland grew up on a farm in Cantley, Quebec and worked for 35 years as a pasture specialist in MAPAQ’s Outaouais sector. A member of the Ordre des agronomes du Québec, he specializes in grassfed beef production and intensive pasture management.

FARM PROPERTY TAXES

Report on the summer season and upcoming steps

If you are a farm owner and operator who completed a joint application for payment, and signed a consent form authorizing the disclosure of credit information, you should recently have received a statement of payments. This document is a summary of the credits applied to the tax account and of the cheques received for the period from January to June 2007.

Since April 2007, the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation (MAPAQ) has issued payments and cheques for more than 70,000 assessment units, for a value of some $93 million. Payments will continue to be issued weekly for owners who have not received credits and who are eligible for payments.

Next steps

▪ Exchange of information about gross farm income between Revenu Québec and MAPAQ has begun and will continue until November. This exchange makes it possible to determine eligibility for the farm property tax credit program.

▪ A new document entitled “Status Report” will be mailed to you soon. It indicates the requirements for registering a farm operation and its assessment units, a prerequisite for the farm property tax credit to be applied directly to 2008 municipal tax accounts .

▪ The same conditions described in the status reportwill be used byMAPAQ to determine the payments it will issue in 2007 .

▪ In compliance with the directives specified in the status report, the deadline for putting your file in order is November 30, 2007. To do so, contact your service centre.

▪ After November 30, it will be too late to act. If you do not satisfy registration requirements, no credit will be applied directly to your 2008 municipal tax account. Instead, you will receive a payment from MAPAQ sometime in 2008.

Quebec cheesemakers recognized for their excellence

Quebec cheesemakers exceeded all expectations this year by bringing home 31 prizes from the American Cheese Society (ACS) competition that took place a few weeks ago in Burlington, Vermont. This unprecedented showing is a 30 per cent increase over that of 2006, when Quebec cheesemakers won 24 ribbons, for a total of 101 prizes awarded to Quebec at the competition over the past six years.

The Quebec companies honoured this year were Agropur, Damafro, Fromagerie Bergeron, Fromagerie Le Détour, Fromagerie Tournevent, La Maison Alexis de Portneuf, La Moutonnière, Liberté and Saputo. Quebec cheese producers took first, second, and third place in over 26 categories, which highlights the diversity of the industry when it comes to cheeses made from cow’s milk, goat’s milk or sheep’s milk. In the Soft Ripened Cheeses – Brie Made from Cow’s Milk category, it was a clean sweep for Quebec, which earned first, second and third place standings.

Recognized as the authority in judging and promoting farmstead and artisanal cheeses and cheese products in the United States and Canada, the ACS is a not-for-profit organization that rates cheeses based on aesthetic and technical criteria. This year, a record number of cheeses (1208) from more than 200 American and Canadian producers were entered. This impressive figure is indicative of the high calibre of the ACS competition.

The involvement of the Quebec Delegations in Boston and Chicago and of Transformation alimentaire Quebec (TRANSAQ), which supported the efforts of Quebec’s fine cheese industry in this competition, deserves mention. Let’s hope that Quebec’s cheesemakers will do just as well at the 2008 competition in Chicago, Illinois.

2007-09-06

Sweet pearl millet for ethanol and fodder

Marc F. Clément, agronome

MAPAQ

Outaouais sector

Since it was first cultivated in 1997, pearl millet has constantly amazed us. A strain that produces highly sweet sap now heralds a significant change in farming methods in the sandy soils of Quebec, as it provides not only fodder but also ethanol. It’s like having your cake and eating it, too!

Introduced in the late 1990s by AERC Inc., fodder pearl millet is known for its ability to reduce lesion nematode ( Pratylenchus penetrans) populations and adapt to light and acidic soils like potato soils. Fodder pearl millet occupies approximately 1,500 hectares in Quebec and 2,650 hectares in Eastern Canada; it is primarily used as green manure and also provides a backup fodder supply. The potential yield is eight to ten tonnes per hectare (t/ha) for a base consisting of 100 per cent dry matter. Given that pearl millet provides no direct income as a rotation crop, many potato producers still choose rye and oats, even though these grains offer no protection against the lesion nematode—different from the golden nematode discovered recently in Quebec.

Introduced in the early 2000s, grain pearl millet has an estimated seed yield of 2.5 t/ha. It could be sold on both human and feed grade food markets. In addition, since the grain is rich in omega-3 fatty acids, poultry and hog producers are very interested in the animal nutrition testing underway in Guelph, Ontario, and Macdonald College in Quebec. Grain pearl millet cultivars provide the same nematicidal properties with respect to crop rotation as fodder pearl millet. However, this plant suffers from competition with annual grasses, as it is short and allows light to penetrate down to the ground. For this reason, herbicide is needed for the plant to grow. Despite this major difficulty, grain pearl millet is cultivated on some 60 hectares in Eastern Canada, including 20 hectares in Quebec. On March 26 at the Canadian Minor Use Pesticide Priority Setting Workshop organized by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Pest Management Centre, this problem (lack of a graminicide) was chosen from a long list of registration applications. Work begun three years ago by Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation (MAPAQ) and Centre de recherche et de développement technologique agricole de l’Outaouais (CREDETAO) will continue with a view to securing graminicide registration.

More recently, new data has shown that selected fodder pearl millet produces highly sweet sap, consisting of over 20 per cent sugar. This sap could be used for ethanol production, while the fodder itself could be used to feed cattle. Ethanol production using this plant is akin to production from sugarcane, with one major difference: once pressed, foliage and stems can be used as fodder. CREDETAO and MAPAQ are working on this project in the Outaouais region by calling on area producers and community organizations to help finalize the financing package required to carry out scientific research. According to preliminary studies conducted in the Outaouais, sweet pearl millet could produce 6 to 8 t/ha of fodder (100 per cent dry matter base) of equivalent quality to grass silage, as well as over 3,000 litres of ethanol.

There are many benefits for the Outaouais region. Pearl millet cultivation would double the fodder yield of sandy and acidic soils, and strengthen cattle production in the area. Additional revenue from sap sales would increase and diversify the income of farmers. Although pearl millet is an annual crop, it is grown in narrow rows and yields a significant amount of stable humus. While the objective is not to do away with perennial crops in favor of an annual crop, increased crop rotation in the Outaouais would be highly beneficial.

The area currently occupied by all forms of pearl millet represents only a tiny portion of what Quebec and Eastern Canada farmland could become in terms of crop rotation. With its considerable adaptability to sandy and acidic soils, as well as excessive drainage, pearl millet could be the key crop for all rotations across hundreds of thousands of hectares.

For more information contact Marc F. Clément, Agronomist, Large Scale Farming and Agroenvironmental Consultant, MAPAQ, Outaouais Sector, tel. 819-986-8544, ext. 225

Made-to-m easure t raining for p roducers

Maryse Harnois, agronome

Horticultural Production Advisor

MAPAQ-Outaouais sector

Since agricultural training is considered one of the critical factors in the success of a farming enterprise, the Collectif régional en formation agricole de l’Outaouais prepares and organizes made-to-measure activities and courses for its farming clientele. During the year 2006-2007, the Collectif gave more than 25 courses to over 310 individuals. Course participants had no shortage of favourable comments concerning the quality of instructors and the content of courses and workshops. In fact, some participants immediately adopted the innovative production methods they discovered through taking one or another of the courses.

The Collectif is now preparing its training lineup for the year in progress. In setting up activities that are of interest to different sectors, and contribute directly to the development of agriculture, the Collectif works in close collaboration with members of the agricultural community. The courses and activities it offers deal notably with acquiring management skills, diversifying production, sustainable development practices and value-added strategies.

Is there some particular training topic that could meet your needs? Don’t hesitate to let us know—contact the person in charge of agricultural training, Nathalie Matte, at 819-427-5511, ext. 461. She will be happy to organize the right activity to help you make your farming enterprise more successful. All that’s needed for a course to get rolling is a minimum of ten participants, a teacher and a room!

Agricultural training collectives are subsidized by grants from Emploi-Québec, the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation and the Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. This enables them to offer training activities and courses to the farming community at a very affordable price. Visit the web site at www.formationagricole.com .

Reap the benefits—they’re for you!

The evolution of knowledge is an essential factor in ensuring the competitiveness of farming enterprises and the sustainable development of the sector.

A new year begins when feeder calves arrive in the feedlot

André Cécyre, veterinarian

Veterinary Consultation Program coordinator

FPBQ

For slaughter steer producers, the end of summer often means the start of a new year in their feedlots. It’s the ideal period to make changes and to proceed with any necessary improvements. Since the feedlot is often less occupied in the summer, it is a good time to repair or improve the infrastructure. If required, gates and pen partitions can be strengthened, floors patched and feed bunks repaired. If time permits, it would be wise to do a complete cleaning as well, followed by a thorough disinfection to reduce the chances of sickness and the spread of ringworm—a very nasty condition once it appears.

Those tasks can be done much more efficiently if a list has been carefully made in a notebook throughout the year, describing the work to be done. Once summer arrives, the list will be a helpful reminder: a lack of ventilation in one area, a roof that condenses or leaks in another, a floor that injures the animals’ feet, causing foot rot or ringworm. Then, once the repairs have been completed, the calves can be put in with confidence.

The importance of exercise!

During the first weeks, while space still permits, it’s advantageous to increase–or even double— the floor space per head. Sickness rates will decrease with lower animal density and improved animal circulation. Remember that the calves have probably just come off pasture before arriving at the feedlot. Not only is a lack of movement a considerable stress on them, since they have been accustomed to walking several kilometres per day, but the competition at the feed bunk and at the waterers is something they’re not used to.

The sooner the better

Providing that your new animals didn’t have too far to travel to your feedlot (less then ten hours), you can proceed almost immediately with their vaccinations against the Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex (BRDC) viral infection, and against the most common bacterial infections: Histophilus somni, Pasteurella multocida, Manheimia hemolytica and various clostridium.

How to deal with animal stress

Calves coming from long distances (Western Canada, for example) should be vaccinated as soon as possible, but only after the transportation stress has subsided. Therefore, they should be left to rest for several hours on comfortable bedding, allowing them to rehydrate and eat a bit before proceeding. Statistics show that for each day of delay in administering vaccinations after arrival, sickness rates increase considerably. Consequently, local animals should be vaccinated almost as soon as they come out of the truck, while the more stressed, tired and dehydrated cattle should be given a rest period of several hours. I repeat, several hours—not several weeks.

In conjunction with vaccinations, the new arrivals should also be treated for parasites. This means both internal parasites (gastro-intestinal and pulmonary worms) as well as external (lice and mange). In the majority of cases, the use of avermectins should be sufficient. Recently treated animals should be kept separated for several weeks from those that have already been there for a while, mainly to prevent a re-infestation of lice from new arrivals.

Preventive antibiotherapy merits consideration

The use of antibiotics for prophylaxis (for prevention) or for metaphylaxis (when the sickness appears in a certain percentage of the animals, say, 15 per cent ) is a fairly common practice in feedlots. The more a group of calves is considered at risk, the more this strategy is recommended. A group can be considered at risk if the calves are purchased late in the fall, in November or December for example , if the animals are lighter than average, if they have been subjected to bad weather conditions during transport or have undergone any other form of considerable stress. For this category of animals, an injection of long-acting antibiotics (oxytetracycline, LA, Micotil, Nuflor, Draxxin, etc.) administered to all the animals at the same time as the prophylaxis vaccination or several days after, as soon as 15 to 2 0 per cent of the calves show a fever of over 40 degrees celsius (metaphylaxis), could prove to be