Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! All calves require some sort of spring/summer processing. Two of the more painful events during these times include dehorning and castration. In this episode, the experts invite K-State college of veterinary medicine student Jake Schumacher to share the progress of his research on how maternal bovine appeasing substance affects calf pain levels and performance when processing. The show then progresses with Dr. Phillip Lancaster talking through different ways to approach summer grazing. To end this edition of Cattle Chat, Dr. Brian Lubbers and Dr. Bob Larson engage in a conversation regarding the quick and sudden death of calves. Thanks for tuning in and enjoy the episode!
3:13 Pain management: Research on alleviating pain in young calves during processing
8:42 Grazing Forages: Alternative grasses
13:21 Sudden Calf Death: Blackleg, bacteria and overeating
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!
With most cows out on grass, now is the perfect time for producers to start thinking ahead and formulating rations for later in the year. A major component of those rations is protein. Dr. Phillip Lancaster and Dr. Brad White explain all things protein – including microbial protein synthesis and how nutritionists calculate the available nitrogen within a diet – during this episode of Diving into Diets: a Bovine Science with BCI podcast. Thanks for listening and enjoy the show!
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! Most nutritionists consider water the most significant nutrient cattle consume, so correctly managing this finite resource becomes critical for successful beef production. Joe Gerken, K-State assistant professor of Wildlife and Outdoor Enterprise Management, begins the episode by discussing various pond fundamentals with the hosts. Gerken and the experts then progress the show by answering a listener’s question about providing a separate water source for calves. Lastly, this week’s Cattle Chat concludes with interesting dialogue around different pond management strategies. Thanks for tuning in, and enjoy the episode!
4:21 Pond Basics: life expectancy, maintenance, refurbishment, sediment and health
10:31 Listener questions: Does water availability affect rate of gain in calves? & Should I provide my calves a separate water source from my cows?
15:14 Pond management: fencing, development programs, adding fish and blue green algae
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!
Bob Larson, DVM, PhD Reproductive physiologist and Epidemiologist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University RLarson@vet.k-state.edu
Cattle producers recognize that summer is the season to battle flies on cattle. Several types of flies cause irritation and pain, reduce weight-gain, and transmit disease-causing germs, but each of the fly species have unique characteristics that should be considered before the battle begins. As in many contests, knowing your opponent is critical to increase chances for success. Four of the most common fly pests for cattle in North America are horn flies, face flies, stable flies, and horse flies.
Horn flies are a biting insect that takes more than 30 blood meals a day and spend almost all their time on the backs, sides, and poll of cattle. When horn fly numbers become very large, cattle spend a lot of time and energy fighting them rather than grazing – therefore weight gain and milk production are reduced. In addition, these flies have been implicated in the spread of mastitis in beef herds. These flies seem to prefer adult cattle more than suckling calves, but when populations get very high, calves will be affected also. Female horn flies deposit eggs in fresh manure and the larvae survive much better in the manure of grass-fed cattle compared to the manure of cattle consuming grain rations. Eggs hatch from the manure pat within a week and then live as a pupae in the soil under the manure pat. The entire life-cycle takes about 10 to 20 days depending on the weather and because each female horn fly will lay as many as 400-500 eggs in her lifetime, the population can become very large in a very short period of time. Horn fly numbers usually peak in early summer and then decline as heat and dryness decrease the suitability of manure pats for the immature larvae and pupae. Late in the summer or in early fall, the conditions may improve for the immature horn flies and the population can increase again.
Because horn flies spend almost all their lives on cattle, applying chemical pesticides to cattle can be an effective method to expose the flies to lethal doses. Several different types of pesticides that are safe to use on cattle are effective against horn flies, but some horn fly populations are resistant to the pyrethroid class of chemicals. If you used a pyrethroid insecticide last year and you were not satisfied with the level of horn fly control you achieved, then it may be wise to switch to a different chemical class for your pesticide this year. Backrubbers and dust bags can be a very economical method to apply pesticides if the cattle are forced to use them daily to get to water or mineral feeders. Proper placement and frequent re-filling are necessary for this control method to work well. Insecticide ear tags can be an effective method to deliver pesticide to your cattle on a daily basis, but resistance to pyrethroid tags can be a problem unless several general rules are followed: delay tagging until fly populations reach about 200 flies per animal, tag all cattle in the herd by following the instructions on the label, rotate the insecticide class so that cattle aren’t exposed to the same chemical class year-after-year, and remove the tags at the end of the fly-season. Sprays and pour-on products that are re-applied every 7 to 21 days can also be effective and these products have the advantage that timing of re-application can be adjusted based on the fly population with the obvious disadvantage of needing multiple applications. Larvicide (larvae-killing) products that are included in mineral or feed will pass through to kill fly larvae and pupae in the manure pat. To be effective, cattle must consume these oral products daily so that all fresh manure has an effective dose before the female horn fly lays her eggs. Because newly hatched horn flies will migrate to find cattle, control is most effective if all the fresh manure within several miles of your herd is effectively treated. Non-chemical control of horn flies focuses on decreasing the contact between cattle and new flies emerging from manure pats by dragging pastures to speed drying and exposure of larvae and pupae to dry heat.
Face flies don’t actually bite cattle, but the female has sharp mouth parts similar to a rasp that she uses to damage the skin so that she can suck up liquids such as eye secretions, discharge from the nose, or blood from wounds. The face fly is different from the horn fly in that this species spends very little time on cattle and spends most of itslife resting on fence posts, plants, or other vegetation. Because they spend so little time on cattle, treating cattle with pesticides is less likely to result in the flies receiving a lethal dose. It does appear that daily application of pyrethroid insecticides directly on the face of cattle does reduce the time that face flies will spend on cattle. Backrubbers and dustbags that effectively apply insecticide to the face as well as ear tags are methods that can provide daily insecticide exposure. Because pour-ons and sprays are not applied daily, these methods of chemical application are not likely to reduce face fly problems. Like the horn fly, face fly females also lay eggs in fresh, grass-fed manure pats and the immature stages live in the manure pat and in the nearby soil. Because face flies can fly long distances, dragging pastures to break up manure pats and using oral insecticides in the mineral or feed may not be as effective as for horn flies which migrate less.
Stable flies are blood-suckers that mainly feed on the front legs of cattle. These flies have a very painful bite, and even a small population can cause a great deal of discomfort and cattle will try to avoid them by stamping their legs, bunching together, or standing in water. Stable fly eggs are deposited in rotting plant matter mixed with moist manure or soil such as around hay feeding sites, the edges of feeding aprons, and around hay stacks. Because the fly eggs aren’t laid in fresh manure, the oral larvicides do not provide effective control. Applying insecticides with a spray or mist at weekly intervals is the only chemical control that is effective for pasture cattle. Sanitation and clean-up of wasted feed around hay rings, feedbunks, and fence rows is an important non-chemical method of stable fly control. For cattle confined to a feedlot, fly predators (also called parasitic wasps) can be used because they effectively kill immature flies. But because these types of non-stinging wasps are not strong fliers, they are not effective in pasture situations. Parasitic wasps must be purchased and released in areas likely to have fly eggs about once a month during the entire fly season.
Horse flies are very large and have a painful bite. After a blood meal, female horse flies will lay their eggs on plants near ponds or streams. Because horse flies are large and hardy, chemical pesticides seem to have little effect, and because they do not lay their eggs in manure or decaying plant matter, sanitation is not effective as a control method.
Complete elimination of all flies is not possible, but by knowing about different fly pests that will confront your cattle, effective control strategies can be planned. Because fly populations will vary from one year to the next based on factors such as rainfall, grazing density, and previous exposure to chemical insecticides, fly control strategies have to be flexible and may need to be changed.
A producer brings a depressed calf and its dam to Dr. Matt Miesner from a herd with a history of scours. Initially, he thought it was a cut-and-dry case. After more investigation, the opposite started to become true. Dr. Brad White discusses this tricky situation with Dr. Miesner on this episode of Bovine Science with BCI.
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! Ever wondered when its time to cut your losses and ship that sick calf out of the yard? Lilli Heinen joins the show to help answer that question and talk about her research concerning case fatality risk. The hosts continue the show by discussing important things for 4-Hers to remember when caring for their beef projects from nutrition to record keeping. Dr. Brian Lubbers wraps up this edition of Cattle Chat by discussing his key takeaways from a recent Presidential Advisory Council on Combatting Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria meeting. Thanks for tuning in and enjoy the episode!
4:26 Case Fatality Risk
13:29 Considerations for 4-H calves
18:49 Dr. Lubber’s update on a recent PAC CARB meeting
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!
Phillip Lancaster, MS, PhD Ruminant nutritionist Beef Cattle Institute Kansas State University palancaster@vet.k-state.edu
Enteric methane from rumen fermentation accounts for more than 50% of the greenhouse gas emissions from beef production. Cattle consuming forage diets have approximately twice the methane yield (6.5 vs 3.0% of feed intake) compared to cattle on high-grain diets. Thus, the cow-calf and stocker sector of the beef industry account for 90% of methane emissions and 85% of total greenhouse gas emissions of beef production. However, a large portion of the methane emissions can be offset by carbon sequestration with proper grazing management.
How does the beef industry work to further reduce methane emissions from grazing cattle? In a previous article, we talked about feed additives to reduce enteric methane emissions. There has been a lot of research on different feed additives such as seaweed, nitrate, lipids, and 3NOP with a lot of interest in some of these compounds. Feed additives work by capturing hydrogen before methanogenic bacteria can convert it to methane or by inhibiting methanogenic bacteria directly and can reduce methane emissions 20 to 50% when fed to cattle daily. However, feed additives that must be fed daily are not practical in grazing cattle production systems.
One strategy that could be used to reduce methane emissions of grazing cattle is to plant certain forage species with anti-methanogenic properties. Many plant species (legumes, forbs, and herbs) produce bioactive compounds that reduce enteric methane emissions. These compounds include tannins, saponins, phenolic acids, flavonoids, xanthones, lignans, and stilbenes, which vary in concentration among forage plants.
There are 2 forms of tannins, condensed and hydrolysable, found in plants and plants differ in the amount of each form they produce. Condensed tannins reduce methane emissions but can also reduce protein digestibility, nutrient absorption, and animal productivity. However, this does not happen in every case. Hydrolysable tannins have a direct effect on methanogenic bacteria without reducing forage digestion, and thus, may be more practical. Saponins are a subclass of terpenoid compounds that inhibit rumen ciliate protozoa that produce hydrogen. Without the hydrogen available, methanogenic bacteria cannot convert carbon dioxide to methane. However, saponins can contribute to stable foam in the rumen that can cause bloat, thus the proportion of saponin-containing plants in the pasture needs to be limited. The other secondary compounds (phenolic acids, flavonoids, xanthones, lignans, and stilbenes) have demonstrated ability to reduce methane emissions but less is known about the mode of action in the rumen.
Plant species vary in the concentration of bioactive compounds they contain and thus varying degrees of methane-reducing ability. Some plant species that have been evaluated for their effect on methane production are listed in Table 1. The lotus spp. includes plants like birdsfoot trefoil and narrowleaf trefoil which are nitrogen fixing legumes and would provide other benefits to the pasture besides methane reduction. Sainfoin and sulla are other nitrogen-fixing legumes that would be beneficial in pastures and could also reduce methane emissions. All of these legumes have minimal to no bloat risk. Biserrula is an annual legume that contains phenolic compounds and saponins. Chicory and plaintain are perennial herbs with the ability to reduce methane emissions. Many of these plant species can enhance animal performance through increasing digestibility of the forage consumed and increasing protein intake in the case of legumes. However, caution should be used when establishing these forage species in pastures as grazing pastures with high (>40%) proportions of these plant species and the bioactive compounds they contain can reduce productivity of growing animals.
Grass forage plants contain minimal to no bioactive compounds with methane reducing capability. Thus, including legumes and forbs in pasture plantings is necessary to increase the consumption of bioactive compounds by grazing cattle. Plant biodiversity in pastures is not only sustainable from wildlife and soil health perspective but may also reduce the methane emissions. Many of the plants with methane-reducing ability are not commonly grown for grazing. One thing to note is that many of the studies calculating the methane emissions for the cow-calf and stocker sectors utilize data based on common forage species. Therefore, operations that include high levels of biodiversity of forage plants may have less than expected methane emissions.
Table 1. Pasture forage species with bioactive compounds that reduce methane emissions from cattle
Two months into the calving season, multiple calves within a 40 head herd randomly die with no clinical signs. Dr. Scott Fritz and Dr. Brad White get to the bottom this mystery on this week’s edition of Bovine Science’s Tox Talk.
The toxicology website and Bovine Sciences with BCI podcasts have been sponsored in part through a veterinary services grant that Dr. Scott Fritz, Dr. Steve Ensley and Dr. Bob Larson have received to share more toxicology information and examples for people to understand what to submit and how to submit. Another part of that grant has been working with people and producer in the field.
Welcome to BCI Cattle Chat! Dan Moser begins this week’s episode answering a listener’s question regarding the accuracy of a young sire’s EPDs. The hosts continue the show replying to rapid fire questions on how to be successful as a student and young professional within the beef cattle business. Moser carries on this edition of Cattle Chat by responding to more questions about genetics and breed associations. Dr. Bob Larson, Moser and the other experts conclude by discussing when producers should take action after noticing something out of the ordinary within their cowherd.
3:12 EPD Accuracy Question
11:25 Rapid Fire Questions for students and industry professionals
16:20 Breed Associations and how they update their EPDs
20:41 Investigating Spontaneous Genetic Changes
For more on BCI Cattle Chat, follow us on Twitter at @The_BCI, Facebook, and Instagram at @ksubci. Check out our website, ksubci.org. If you have any comments/questions/topic ideas, please send them to bci@ksu.edu. You can also email us to sign up for our weekly news blast! Don’t forget if you enjoy the show, please go give us a rating!
Dr. Brian Lubbers and Dr. Brad White deep dive into a recently published paper titled: Comparison between a complete preconditioning programme and conventional conduct on behaviour, health and performance of young bulls from small cow-calf herds.
After the Abstract is recorded with the goal of assisting veterinarians in the interpretation of scientific literature. This podcast is not an endorsement of specific practices and medical decisions should only be made in consultation with your veterinarian.
