- CCSE-SWCC

Transcription

- CCSE-SWCC

Motels in Moncton
A block of rooms and conference room have
been reserved under “Beef Workshop” at
Keddy’s Motor Inn (until Feb. 21st 2003),
1510 Shediac Road, Moncton, NB.
Tel: (506) 854-2210, Fax: 857-9960
Rate: ($59 - 1 bed; $65 - 2 beds)
Improving Management
Practices in the
Livestock Sector
March 4 - 5, 2003
Workshop Goals & Objectives:
Bring together the key farm organization leaders and
stakeholders from across Canada to:
F
Provide information to beef producers about improved
management practices in the beef industry.
F
Raise awareness about the link between agriculture
and greenhouse gases and what role agriculture
can play to help reduce emissions.
F
Provide an opportunity for producers from the
Atlantic provinces to network.
Other motels :
Best Western Crystal Palace Hotel
499 Paul Street, Moncton
tel: (506) 858-8584, fax: 858-5486
1-800-561-7108
Chateau Moncton
Main Street, Moncton
1-800-576-4040; (506) 870-4444
Coastal Inn
502 Kennedy, Dieppe
1-800-561-3939; (506) 857-9686
Comfort Inn
Maplewood Dr., Dieppe
1-800-424-6423; (506) 859-6868
Listing of other motels in Moncton is available at :
http://www.moncton.worldweb.com/WheretoStay
Keddy’s Motor Inn
1510 Shediac Road
Moncton, NB
Who should be attending this Workshop?
Hosted by :
Eastern Canada Soil and Water
Conservation Centre
&
Canadian Cattlemen’s
Association
In order to assure accommodations, we suggest that you
make your reservations as soon as possible.
The Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation
Centre is a non government organization affiliated
with:
F
Agricultural producers (primarily beef).
F
Agri-environment conservation groups such as :
Conservation Club Leaders and SCC TAKING
CHARGE Team Leaders.
F
Representatives from governments, industry,
agribusiness and institutions from Canada.
Workshop Steering Committee
Peggy Strankman, Manager, Environmental Affairs
CCA, AB
Jean-Louis Daigle, Executive Director, ECSWCC, NB
Nicole McLaughlin, CCAF Coordinator, ECSWCC, NB
Financed under:
Ruth Kaiser, NS Cattle Producers, NS
Joe Rideout, NB Cattle Producers, NB
Climate Change Action Fund (CCAF)
Agricultural Awareness Partnership Project
between PFRA, CCA, CFA, SCC and ECSWCC
Susan Rowan, PEI Cattle Producers, PEI
Pat Walker, CCA GHG MP Coordinator, AB
The cost of registration is $15
Program
March 4th,2003
Tuesday Night
7:00 p.m. Registration
- Mix & Mingle Reception
(Finger Foods & Cash Bar)
- Displays, Information Booths
8:00 p.m. Welcome
10:55 Nutrient Management Planning
Gordon Fairchild, Soil Specialist,
ECSWCC
Address:
11:45 Question and Answer Session
For morning presentations - panel
discussion
Tel:
12:00 Lunch
I plan to:
13:15 No-till forages
Philip Pedersen, Beef Producer, NS
r attend the reception Tuesday night (included)
r attend the lunch Wednesday noon (included)
March 5 , 2003
13:40 Beef Nutrition
Les Halliday, Beef Specialist, PEIDAF
8:00 Registration
9:00 Introductory remarks
9:15 Pasture Management
Dr Alan Fredeen, Scientist, NSAC
9:40 Role of Community Pastures in
Atlantic Canada
Sean Firth, Consultant, AgraPoint
10:05 Nutrition Break
10:30 Alternate Watering Devices
Tyler Wright, PEI SCIA, Manager
Name
11:20 Forage Management
Mike Price, Forage Specialist, NBAFA
th
Wednesday
Please pre-register before February 21, 2003
14:05 Nutrition Break
14:30 Management Practices Affecting
Greenhouse Gases
Nicole McLaughlin, Climate Change
Coordinator, ECSWCC
14:55 GHG Calculator
Peggy Strankman & Pat Walker
Canadian Cattlemen’s Association
15:15 Question and Answer Session
For afternoon presentations - panel
discussion
Fax:
E-mail:
Please return this form with a cheque payable to:
Beef Workshop
ECSWCC (Beef Workshop)
Att: Lorraine Carroll
1010, chemin de l’Eglise
DSL Saint-André, NB E3Y 2X9
For further information on the workshop :
Nicole McLaughlin
email: nmclaugh@umce.ca
Web site: www.ccse-swcc.nb.ca
Tel: (506) 475-4040; Fax: (506) 475-4030
Please make your own room reservation as
soon as possible
15:30 Wrap up / Evaluation
NB - La traduction simultanée sera disponible
Introduction
Many people associate costly investments with protecting the environment. The fact is,
most of our activities depend on clean air, water and healthy soil. If we want to continue
doing these activities successfully in the future, we have no choice but to take care of the
environment around us. Interestingly enough, many agricultural practices, which
conserve the environment, also save money.
In order to promote these good management practices in Atlantic Canada, the Canadian
Cattlemen's Association approached the Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation
Centre to organize a workshop entitled "Improved Management Practices in the
Livestock Sector". This workshop was held March 4th & 5th in Moncton, NB.
The objectives of the workshop were:
1) to provide information to beef producers about improved management practices in
the beef industry;
2) to raise awareness about the link between agriculture and greenhouse gases and
what role agriculture can play to help reduce emissions, and
3) to provide an opportunity for producers from the Atlantic provinces to network.
Despite stormy weather, 65 people attended the workshop. Participants from the three
maritime provinces included producers, government employees, greenhouse gas
coordinators, agro-environmental club coordinators and journalists.
We wish to extend special thanks to the speakers, the workshop's steering committee, the
Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation
Centre's staff who organized and ensured the smooth running of the workshop.
Funding for the workshop was made possible through the Agricultural Awareness
Partnership Project supported by the Climate Change Action Fund, Government of
Canada.
It is a hope that this workshop provided information to agricultural producers about good
management practices which can be implemented on the farm, which will increase the
health of the environment and the farm business at the same time.
Nicole McLaughlin, MSc
CCAF Coordinator, ECSWCC
Chairperson, Workshop Steering Committee
1
Improving Management Practices in the Livestock Sector
Moncton, NB, March 4-5,2003
Pasture Management
Alan H. Fredeen, PhD, P.Ag
Nova Scotia Agricultural College
PO Box 550,Truro, Nova Scotia, B2N 5E3
afredeen@nsac.ns.ca
Alan is a ruminant nutritionist specializing in dairy systems design and analysis.
His current research focus is on improving milk composition and the ecological
role of dairying in Canada, including examining the potential for using pasturebased ruminant production in agriculture to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. He
received a Ph.D. in nutrition at the University of California, Davis in 1984 and has
been employed at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College in Truro since 1995. He is
currently a professor in the Plant and Animal Science Department where he teaches
courses in dairying, ruminant nutrition and food security at the continuing,
technical, degree and graduate levels. He chairs the Atlantic Pasture Research
Group, an interdisciplinary team involved in furthering pasture-based ruminant
production. He has travelled to Cuba, Colombia and China to speak on topics of
sustainable dairy production, and in 2002 spent a research leave in France. In 1995
he received the AIC Young Researcher award. In 1997 he received the NSAC
Research Award.
Using pastures to feed cattle offers several benefits. One important benefit is that it saves
on time. It is not necessary to harvest forages to feed the cattle in the summer months as
the cattle are feeding themselves. There is less manure in storage, which then needs to be
spread when using a pasture system. And, used effectively, a pasture can store carbon in
the soil, and the animals will digest their feed more efficiently.
There are 6 principles to abide by when using pastures:
1- Start grazing early: As soon as it is appropriate, put the animals out on pasture.
2- Keep pasture at most digestible stage: This is done by dividing the pasture into
different paddocks and rotating the cows through the paddocks. This way, the cattle
don't overgraze the paddock and one can ensure that the cattle are grazing plants that
are between 10 and 25 cm tall.
3- Clip and stockpile surplus: If it is not possible to rotate the cows through the
paddocks quickly enough, one should clip the forage in the pasture so that it remains
in the most digestible stage.
4- Restrict regrazing by moving and back fencing cattle: In the early spring, the pastire
recovery time may be only 6 days while later on in the growing season, it may be
over 36 days.
5- Water and mineral always: It is important to have mineral in the pasture that the
animals can access.
6- Extend grazing season: The grazing should be extended as long as possible in the
fall.
2
These principles help to keep the energy digestible in the forage. The amount of energy
from the Non Digestibles Fibers depends on the digestibility and residence time in the
rumen. Therefore, high quality forages have a high energy content and low residence
time in the rumen.
A good mixture of grass and legumes in the pasture is preferable. This aids in the proper
balance of the C:N ratio for microbes, reduces the amount of energy wasted digesting the
feed and decreases the amount of urea released in the manure. Reducing the amount of
urea will also decrease nitrous oxide emissions.
The greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a grazing system is not greater than in a
high grain system. Both systems result in similar beef yields but the grazing system
requires less fossil fuel use.
In order to ensure winter survival and early growth of the pasture, it is suggested to use a
mixture of varieties: deep-rooted types survive drought, late maturing varieties retain
quality and supplemental crops extend grazing.
Click here to view full presentation
3
Role of Community Pastures in Atlantic Canada
Sean Firth, P.Ag.
AgraPoint
92 Webster, Kentville, Nova Scotia, B4N 1H9
s.firth@agrapoint.ca
Sean Firth has 12 years of progressive experience in the agricultural industry. He has
worked as a provincial beef specialist, consulting with the beef sector to implement
western Nova Scotia's first beef extension program. Most recently he founded and
managed Maritime Agri Care, a research-based company working with the federal
research station at Nappan to undertake economic assessments of the station's
research programs. Sean's specific skills and strengths include a solid understanding
of the regional ruminant industry; an extensive Maritime contact network; long-term
sustainable development programs; ruminant production expertise in nutrition and
genetics; financial management; pasture/forage management; research; and written
and oral communication. He was awarded the C.A. Douglas Award for outstanding
achievement in agricultural extension in Nova Scotia in 1993. Sean has a B.Sc. in
Agriculture, majoring in Animal Science, from the Nova Scotia Agricultural
College.
In Atlantic Canada, there are approximately 20,000 acres of usable community
pastureland. These pastures may be privately owned by individual producers or publicly
owned by the provincial crown. Community pastures are generally underutilized, native
pastures. There are approximately 5,000 head as cow/calf equivalent in Atlantic Canada
that graze on community pastures. The cost range to pasture the cattle is between 34103$/pair per season.
The following table breaks the numbers down into the four Atlantic provinces
Province
New
Brunswick
Newfoundland
Nova
Scotia
# of community pastures
Range in size
(acres)
Average size
(acres)
Total head (CC eqiv)
Weighted stocking density
/pair price range
/pair weighted average price
CC pair average price/ season
6
300-2097
9
100-2000
9
60-2400
Prince
Edward
Island
7
300-1200
832
586
562
723
1455
0.4
0.23-0.41$
0.29$
43.92
534
0.32
-
1179
0.43
0.27-0.69$
0.39
23.70
7838
0.39
0.26-0.60
0.43
63.84
4
The known stocking rate is approximately 0.85 while the actual stocking rate is less than
half that (see table 1). The number of days that cattle spend on pasture is between 150
and 185 days and the weight gain per acre/ per grazing season is between 350 and 650
lbs.
Let's compare the cost of using home pasture to community pastures. Input costs on the
home pasture include fertilizer (80$/ha), lime (30$/ha), fuel (12.5$/ha), fence (14.5/ha),
electricity (0.55/ha) and labour (25$/ha). In total, it costs about $81.75/ ha/ for a pair of
cow calf /season (assuming 2 pairs/ ha).
In contrast, let's compare cost for feeding without using pasture. If we assume that the
cost of the total dry matter of forage per tonne is $ 80 and the dry matter intake of a cow
is 28 lbs/day, then it costs $ 1.02/ per day to feed a cow. If we assume that a calf eats 12
lbs/ day of forage, then it costs $ 0.435 to feed the calf. In total, feeding a cow/calf pair
without pasture costs $ 1.455. This is significantly more expensive than on pasture.
And, community pasture is the least expensive method of raising beef.
Recently, there has been a lot of talk about how agriculture affects greenhouse gases.
Methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide are the three important greenhouse gases in
agriculture. Pastures can play a role to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by sequestering
carbon, reducing fossil fuel use because there is less need to spread manure and transport
feed to livestock.
In summary, community pastures can provide an economically wise alternative to home
pasture and stored forage and have positive environmental impacts.
5
Alternate Watering Devices
Tyler Wright, P.Eng.
PEI Soil and Crop Improvement Association
P.O. Box 21012, Charlottetown, PEI, C1A 9H6
wright.tj@pei.sympatico.ca
Tyler was born and raised on a potato farm in Middleton, Prince Edward Island.
Tyler attended the University of Prince Edward Island and completed his
Agricultural Engineering degree at the Technical University of Nova Scotia in 1990.
He has spent many years working with the PEI Soil and Crop in the area of soil and
water conservation, and delivering programs to farmers such as the Green Plan, LMAP and the Livestock Fencing and Watering Program.
Tyler still resides in
Middleton on the home farm with his wife Judy and daughter MacKenzie.
In the past, livestock have been allowed free access to watercourses in pastures on PEI.
However, this can cause water contamination, stream bank erosion, reduction in the
quality of fish and wildlife habitat, to name a few of the concerns. Access to wetlands
and watercourses can also adversely affect the health and production of livestock. After
September 30th, 2003, all livestock must be fenced from the watercourses.
The amount of livestock that have been fenced from PEI water courses have increased
from 65 % in 1999 to an estimated 83 % in the fall of 2002. The Livestock Fencing and
Watering Program began in 1991. Currently the Sustainable Resource Conservation
Program assists with 66 % of the labour, materials and equipment required to install
fences, watering systems and often times stream crossings. On average, it costs $ 7,000/
farm to fence the livestock from the watercourses, but often it costs much less.
There are a number of alternate watering systems. The choice of a watering system
depends on the farm needs, the site and the amount of money the farmer is able to spend.
Farm wells are one of the sources of water for cattle. Water is transported through a
polyethylene pipe, which may be buried above or below the frost line or laid on top of the
ground. Most times the water is pumped to the pasture by gravity if the stock tank is
lower in elevation than the pump and well. This is a flexible system and can easily be
used for an intensive grazing system. It is able to carry water for long distances (1,600
metres) with a properly designed system (ie. pipe size and pumping equipment).
Gravity flow systems do not require any type of equipment. They are of low cost,
dependable and require little maintenance.
The gravity system works best on
watercourses that have grades exceeding 3 % and the stream bank is not significantly
6
higher than the streambed. However systems with as little as a 0.6 % grade have been
successfully installed on PEI.
The hydraulic ram pump is installed in running water. The water produces a hammering
effect on the pump, which then pumps a small portion of water into a storage reservoir.
The bilge pump is a marine sump pump and is placed directly in a watercourse or pond.
A 12-volt deep cycle battery powers the bilge pump. This is a low cost system. It is
more labour intensive than some options, as the producers must switch the battery on a
weekly basis. The bilge system is unable to pump water for long distances and therefore,
the watering tank should be no more than 3-5 metres from the pump. The maximum
vertical lift for this system is 3 to 3½ meters. Some producers have installed small RV
solar panels to significantly reduce the frequency of changing batteries.
There are solar powered systems that work on a 12 or 24-volt charge. A battery and/or
water reservoir are required to ensure water is available on cloudy days. It is a good
system to use on large pastures and remote sites but not as flexible when multiple
watering stations are required as in an intensive grazing system.
Wind power can also be used to pump water to livestock. In order to function properly,
there must be a reliable source of wind. A battery and/or water reservoir are required so
that water is available on calm days.
Nose pumps are powered by a cow pushing its nose against a lever. Only one animal
waters at a time. Manufacturers recommend 20 to 25 animals per pump; on larger
pastures where watering is a herd activity this should ideally be reduced by at least half.
The pump will lift water 6 meters vertically and 24 meters horizontally. Nose pumps are
easy to install and very portable. They are not recommended for young calves.
Water may be simply moved from one pasture to another using a portable water tank.
The water tank is on wheels and is pulled by a tractor and a smaller stock tank is set
underneath for the cattle. This system does require a high degree of management.
A gas motor may also power the watering system. As you can see, there are many ways
of providing water to the herd.
Stock tanks may be an old bathtub, may be made of plastic, concrete or an old tractor tire.
What the farmer decides to use depends on his (her) own preference but there is no end to
innovative ideas.
7
Nutrient Management Planning
Gordon Fairchild, Ph.D. P.Ag.
Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre
1010 ch. de l'Église, DSL Saint-André, NB E3Y 2X9
gordonf@umce.ca
Gordon has a Ph.D. in soil fertility from the University of Guelph and is the soils
specialist at the Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre in Grand Falls, NB.
His work experience ranges from research to soil test laboratories to on-farm
experiments. He has a broad general knowledge of soil fertility, soil and water
conservation issues and the laboratory analysis of soils, plants and manures.
Nutrient management is not a new concept. Soil fertility management dates back to the
beginnings of agriculture and was significantly advanced in the 18th and 19th centuries by
Liebig's introduction of the concept of the "Law of the Minimum" and by the introduction of
relatively high analysis inorganic fertilizers. Liebig's Law of the Minimum stated that the
most limiting nutrient limits yield and that application of other nutrients would not increase
yield until the limiting nutrient became sufficient.
So if the concept of nutrient management is not new, then what is the difference between
Nutrient Management Planning (NMP) and soil fertility management? Fertility management
is designed to meet crop needs for nutrients. Nutrient Management Planning should both meet
crop needs for nutrients and attempt to minimize environmental impacts from nutrient use.
There are some potential concerns from nutrient use in agriculture. In Atlantic Canada,
rainfall is greater than evapotranspiration, and therefore there is always a potential for water
to run off fields or leach to groundwater. Runoff in any watershed eventually reaches a lake or
river where it may have an impact on water quality. The phosphorus (P) in runoff water may
cause eutrophication of surface waters making the water unsuitable for fish and reducing
water quality. Ammonia in the runoff can be directly toxic to fish as well. Part of the excess
water on fields may leach into groundwater carrying with it nitrates which can contribute to
various human health problems, such as methaemoglobenaemia (Blue Baby syndrome). There
are other concerns deriving from nutrient use in agriculture, including: ammonia volatilization
and odours; emission of greenhouse gases; and runoff of bacteria and pathogens from manure
or biosolid applications.
The nutrients used in agriculture come from several sources: manures; fertilizers; legumes;
biosolids; compost; plant residues; lime; soil organic matter; and other land-applied wastes.
NMP must consider the fate of these nutrients once applied to the land. Part of these nutrients
will be taken up by plants, part will be returned to the soil in plant residues, and some will be
lost to the environment through the processes of runoff and leaching.
One relatively new challenge in NMP is the observation that we now have areas where the
soils are saturated with P. Ontario has introduced a Phosphorus Index into their NMP and
Quebec uses an Al/P (soil test) ratio in an effort to manage this soil P saturation problem.
8
NMP attempts to address the environmental concerns arising from nutrient use in agriculture
through the use of a variety of good management practice measures, where possible,
including:
• soil testing and manure analysis;
• use of realistic crop yield goals;
• runoff control;
• proper N credits for manure-N and legume-N;
• calibration of manure and fertilizer spreaders;
• spring application of manure rather than fall;
• plowing down legumes in spring rather than fall;
• elimination or consideration of other soil and crop factors limiting nutrient uptake;
• cultivation prior to spreading liquid manure;
• manure incorporation after application;
• respecting minimum separation distances;
• use of fall catch crops;
• riparian buffer zones;
• the management of the N and P contents of feeds to reduce the nutrient content of
manure.
There is legislation in place in some provinces and is coming in others, which may influence
nutrient use in agriculture. The federal Act with the most potential influence on nutrients is
the Fisheries Act, which covers watercourse contamination that could affect fish or any
discharge of a deleterious substance into water that could degrade water quality. However, the
provincial governments have most of the control over livestock operations. Many provinces
do now require a NMP for specific purposes or permits, including AB, MB, ON, QC, and NB.
Quebec now requires an "agro-environmental fertilization plan" each year. These Quebec
plans attempt to balance P sorption and P applied where manure is in excess of the land
carrying capacity. Ontario's new Nutrient Management Planning Act requires that all farms
complete a NMP and include a list of other NMP measures. In New Brunswick, a NMP is
required under the Livestock Operations Act for new operations with greater than 20 livestock
and for existing facilities undergoing a greater than ten-fold expansion. NMP legislation in the
USA and Europe is much more restrictive. Some countries in Europe limit N fertilizer rates,
manure application rates, P from manure, timing of application of manure, or control further
livestock expansion.
The "silver lining" or good news part to NMP is that the nutrients in manure or other on-farm
sources have economic value. If we minimize nutrient losses from all on-farm sources, we
may be minimizing environmental impacts, but we are also maximizing the economic value
of those nutrients. NMP increases the overall economic profitability of the farm, without
impacting the environment.
9
Forage Management
Mike Price, P.Ag.
NB Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fisheries
P.O. Box 6000, Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1
mike.price@gnb.ca
Mike grew up in Keswick Ridge, NB, spending numerous summers working on area
farms. After completing high school, he attended the Nova Scotia Agricultural
College. In 1989, he completed a Bachelor Degree in Agriculture and went to work
with AAFC in Nappan where he spent ten years working in forage breeding and
pasture management research. In 1999, Mike left AAFC to come back home and
work with the NBDARD as their Provincial Forage Specialist. In October 2000 he
was promoted to Provincial Field Crop Specialist in New Brunswick’s new
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture. Since coming to the province
his role has been to foster the development of NB’s field crop sector by providing
both technical support and adaptive research.
Beef producers depend on forages to feed their cattle. Properly managed forages will be
more productive and will increase animal weight gains and improve farm profitability.
First of all, it is important to consider the soil. Soil texture, depth of topsoil, depth to
compact layer and drainage are crucial characteristics to consider when selecting forage
species. For example, certain species do better in poorly drained soils than others.
Species selection will be influenced by the end use, be it pasture, hay or silage. If the
forage is for pasture, one should consider using aggressive species that have excellent regrowth potential such as meadow fescue, orchardgrass, bluegrass and timothy. For hay,
the best species are those that mature late, grow upright and are easy to dry, such as
timothy, bromegrass, reed canarygrass and orchardgrass. Species that are aggressive,
early maturing and have even yield distribution are best for silage. Examples of these
include timothy, bromegrass, reed canarygrass, fescue and orchardgrass. When choosing
species to mix, it's important to choose species that are compatible with each other.
Forage plants do best on soil that is limed to a pH of 6.5. Phosphorus and potassium
should be applied according to soil test recommendations. Nitrogen should be applied to
grass stands at a rate of 50 lbs/acre in the spring followed by another 50 lbs/acre after
first cut. For grass/legume mixtures, 25 lbs/acre should be applied in the spring. No
additional fertilizer nitrogen needs to be applied.
A urea base fertilizer releases the nitrogen slowly and could be used for hay crops as it
can slightly delay maturity. Ammonia base fertilizers should be used for silage.
10
The key to harvesting pasture is to have animals fully adjusted to grazing when pasture
flushes in the spring. Grass silage should be harvested when there is approximately 1050 % heading. Grass/ legume silage should be harvested when approximately 10 % of
the legumes are flowering (don't worry about the grass). As for hay, it can be harvested
any time after 50 % heading, but there needs to be three consecutive dry days.
Remember that late harvest reduces quality.
As plants mature, the fibre content increases while the crude protein, digestibility and
forage intake decline. A high quality grass contains approximately 15 % crude protein,
30 % acid detergent fibre and 55 % neutral-digestible fibre. A high quality legume
contains about 20 % crude protein, 30 % acid detergent fibre and 40 % neutral-digestible
fibre.
In summary, in order to get the most out of the forages, it is important to know the soil,
fertilize efficiently, build upon past experiences and harvest for quality.
11
No-till Forages
Philip Pedersen
Phillarik Farms,
R.R. 6, Amherst, Nova Scotia, B4H 3Y4
plpedersen@ns.sympatico.ca
Philip and his brother, Larry Pedersen operate a dairy-beef farm in Nappan, NS (just
outside Amherst). The 120 holstein cows and the beef feed lot consume cereals, soy,
corn-silage and high-moisture ear- corn grown on the 650 cultivated acres. The land
base is made up equally of marshland and tile drained upland.
Philip received his high school education in Amherst and graduated from the Nova
Scotia Agricultural College as a plant science technician in 1973. Over the years, he
has participated in and chaired the local Federation of agriculture, Soil and Crop
Associations and various other agricultural committees. Apart from farming, Philip's
interests include team penning and scouting fields on horseback.
No-till is a practice that is gaining in popularity and is especially popular in Western
Canada. No-till fields tend to retain more moisture, which is important in dry areas. In
the Maritimes, no-till is a method to maintain yields during drought years. Philip
Pedersen has been using no-till on his farm and he is very satisfied with the results.
However, he modified his practices and equipment to suit his own needs while improving
the drainage system to accommodate for no-till.
For example, he has noted that it's important to plant the seeds quite shallow in the
seedbed. Instead of planting barley an inch deep, barley should only be planted half an
inch deep. This will ensure that they will emerge sooner. It is also important to plant at
the right time. Much of the information that is now available about no-till has not been
adapted for Atlantic Canada and therefore, one has to be mindful of the differences in
climate. If the seed is planted when the ground is too cold and wet, the emergence will
be poor.
When reseeding a forage crop into a field that has been partially winterkilled, make sure
to delay the nitrogen application until the seedlings have emerged. If one applies
nitrogen right away, the established forage will outcompete the seedlings. For example,
in a field that is a 70 % stand seeded in a typical mixture of 60 % grass and 40 %
legumes, DAP (18-46-0) is applied at 100 lbs per acre. This enables the seedlings to
develop a strong good root system to compete with the established forage stand. Once
the seedlings emerge, apply 150 lbs of ammonium nitrate, according to
recommendations.
There are real advantages to no-till. A structural change occurs when converting the field
from conventional till to no-till. The earthworm population increases in a no-till field
12
because they are not disturbed by tillage. Worms create holes that allow water to flow
through the tile drains and for air to warm the soil in the spring. There is better water
infiltration in no-till fields. In some fields, the structural change takes about 4-5 years
whereas in other fields, it may only take 2 or 3 years. A study by Vernon Rodd in Nova
Scotia illustrated the difference between the no-till and the conventional tilled field very
well. In the conventional tilled field, the harvester left deep tracks in the ground during
harvesting whereas in the no-till field, there are no tracks.
Philip has modified his planting equipment so that it doesn't plant too deep, that it has
enough weight to push the seeds through the soil. He has also changed the coulters on his
corn planter. He has even modified his strip tillage machine for his corn crop.
Philip has been very innovative on his farm. He has tried different practices, has learned
from his experiences, modified his equipment to suit his needs. He has paid close
attention to the land, to his crop as he wishes to pass a productive farm down to his
children.
13
Beef Nutrition
Les Halliday, PhD, PAg
PEI Department of Agriculture and Forestry
440 University Avenue, Charlottetown, PEI, C1A 7N3
ljhalliday@gov.pe.ca
Les is native of North West England and grew up on a mixed Dairy, Beef, Poultry
and Swine farm. He graduated from the University of Wales with a Ph.D in
Ruminant Nutrition specializing in forage feeding and started working in Canada in
1985 as a Research Scientist at the Charlottetown Research Centre. He then worked
as a project director for the PEI Cattlemen’s Association for 8 years working on
various projects which included evaluation of forages in relation to quality and
animal performance, the effects of inoculants on silage quality and protein
supplementation of round bale silage for feedlot cattle.
He then worked as an independent beef and dairy nutrition consultant for 7 years and
in October 2000 he joined the PEI Department of Agriculture and Forestry as the
Beef Development Officer. Les and his wife Rose live in York, PEI with their two
daughters Emma and Katie.
Paying attention to the fine details of beef nutrition can have a huge impact on
profitability. One of the basic fundamentals of nutrition is feed efficiency, which looks at
the pounds of feed required for each pound of gain. If rations are balanced correctly, they
will lead to more efficient production, which means that less feed is necessary for each
unit of animal gain. One can also genetically select cattle so that they are more efficient
in digesting their feed using a technique called Net Feed Intake (NFI). A number of bull
test stations are currently being equipped to measure NFI on individual bulls. There is a
general consensus that selecting bulls on average daily gain has really selected for
animals with a larger appetite rather than increased feed efficiency.
Feed efficiency also relates to methane emissions. Beef production is the most important
source of methane emissions in the agricultural sector. By increasing feeding efficiency
(feeding high quality forages and balanced rations), we can reduce the amount of time
that the feed spends in the rumen and reduce the amount of methane emissions.
A portion of the feed that the animal eats is used to supply energy for basic body
functions to keep it alive and this is commonly referred to as maintenance energy.
Weight gain can only occur once the maintenance energy requirements have been met.
However, this is not a simple relationship. Recent trials at Nappan Experimental farm
showed that feed efficiency was dependent on cattle type (Exotic vs British type), energy
14
density of the ration and time on feed. Cattle can obtain their energy through grains, root
crops, forages, and oils or oilseeds. It is important to harvest the forages at the right time
as the amount of protein, lipids and minerals decrease with the age of the plant, while the
amount of sugars, fibre (ADF and NDF) increase.
Proteins are essential for forming and maintaining muscles, organs and bones. The need
for protein is especially important in young, rapidly growing animals and in lactating
cows. Cattle can get their proteins from forages, grains, soybeans, canola, corn gluten,
distiller grains, fishmeal and urea. The protein content, energy and mineral varies
considerably depending on how the crop was managed and therefore, it is important to
have feed samples analysed and if necessary, supplement with the appropriate protein
and/or energy type feeds. The trick to achieving economical gains in cattle is to balance
the digestion of protein and energy in the rumen. For a given set of feeding conditions we
can use a variety of protein sources to supply soluble protein (urea) or bypass protein
(corn gluten) to optimise rumen digestion to achieve the desired level of production.
The amount of minerals such as calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), potassium (K),
magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) contained in the feed affects
cattle health. A lack of minerals will decrease appetite, rates of gain and feed efficiency.
Soils should be analyzed to make sure that they can provide those minerals to the plants
and thus to the animals. Minerals may be supplied to the soil through fertilizer and
manure. The type of forage may also affect the minerals that they contain. For young,
growing animals and lactating cows, the Ca: P ratio should not exceed 2:1. One needs to
avoid an excess of available K in the forage as it will inhibit Mg uptake and can cause
grass tetany. K also affects the amount of Na uptake.
Vitamins A, D and E are usually supplemented in the diet and the rumen microbes supply
adequate amounts of the other vitamins particularly the B group. Other supplements used
in beef rations include ionophores, yeast products and a variety of enzymes, which aid in
the digestion of the feed. In order to avoid using supplements, make sure that the forages
are supplied with optimum nutrient levels and that the soil health is in top shape.
Research has shown that when nutrients are supplied in the forage compared to a
supplement there is an increase in feed efficiency and daily gain.
In a cow/ calf operation, cows have the greatest nutrient requirement when lactating. At
this time, it is important to feed the cows with high quality forages, such as corn silage.
When the calves are being weaned, milk production declines and the cows should be put
on good quality pasture. During mid gestation, the cow's nutrient requirements are at
their lowest. At this time, the cow can lose some pasture gains and they may be fed
lower quality forages, grains or potatoes. During late gestation, the calf is growing and
therefore, the cow needs a good supply of energy, crude protein and minerals. Poor
nutrition at this time will reduce calf vigor, and health as a result of lower quantity/
quality colostrum.
15
In a feedlot operation, the cattle are fed a high energy ration. This should include forage
(for protein, fibre and energy), grains/ potatoes / potato waste (for energy), minerals and
vitamins (balanced for any deficiencies or excesses) and other supplements such as
rumensin or yeast to increase feeding efficiency. The highly variable composition of the
various types of energy feeds means that we must pay close attention to the type of
protein supplementation to achieve economical gains.
In summary, feeding high quality feeds increases feeding efficiency, which increases
profitability and reduces methane emissions. It is important to pay close attention to
nutrition at each stage of production whether it is a cow in early lactation or a 850 pound
steer entering the feedlot, as it affects feeding efficiency and ultimately profit margins.
This means testing the feeds and balancing the rations. High profit margins are also
directly linked to high forage quality which can be produced on a consistent basis if one
stays on top of the soil health, harvest at the appropriate growth stage and reduce storage
losses.
16
Management Practices Affecting Greenhouse Gases
Nicole McLaughlin, MSc
Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre,
1010 ch. de l'Église, DSL Saint-André, NB E3Y 2X9
nmclaugh@umce.ca
Nicole grew up on a potato farm near Grand Falls, NB. In 1998, she obtained a
Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture (Plant Science Major) from the Nova
Scotia Agricultural College. Recently, she has obtained her Masters degree in
agriculture from the University of Guelph, where she studied the effects of
agricultural management practices on greenhouse gas emissions. She has worked
on potato and dairy farms in the Maritimes and in Sweden. She is currently the
climate change awareness co-ordinator at the Eastern Canada Soil and Water
Conservation Centre.
Greenhouse gases are gases that absorb and reemit energy from the sun. Though the
most common greenhouse gas is water vapor, the concentration of other greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is increasing at an alarming rate.
These anthropogenic greenhouse gases include nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4) and halocarbons.
It is expected that in the next 100 years the average surface temperature will increase by
as much as 5.2oC. This warming will be more important in the poles than around the
equator, which is a concern because of ice melts and consequently, sea level rise. It is
also expected that the instability of the atmosphere resulting from an increase of
greenhouse gases will also cause climate change to occur. And, because agriculture is a
sector so dependent on the weather, climate change is something that agricultural
producers should be concerned about. Climate change may result in more drought years,
more pest infestations, more severe storms which may cause more soil erosion, more
flooding and have an impact on water quality, and it may also result in more competition
for water between communities, agriculture, other industries and wildlife.
Though the energy sector contributes to approximately 80 % of the greenhouse gases in
Canada, the agricultural sector is responsible for about 10 % of the emissions. Because
agriculture is dependent upon biological processes, it is not only able to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions, it can also be a sink. Sixty-one percent of the greenhouse gas
emissions from the agricultural sector are nitrous oxide, 38 % are methane and less than
1 % are carbon dioxide.
17
Certain management practices can be used to reduce soil erosion, risks of impact on
water quality and sequester carbon. That is to say, depending on what management
practices are used, the soil can either be a source or a sink for carbon dioxide. For
example, planting trees and/or grasses along waterways reduces erosion, reduces the risk
of impact on water quality and sequesters carbon.
Methane is produced by ruminant animals during digestion, by the decomposition of
manure or by the soil when it is humid. The soil can also be a sink for methane when it is
dry. The use of high quality feeds such as corn and legumes can reduce the amount of
methane produced during digestion as it reduces the time that the feed spends in the
rumen and increases feeding efficiency.
Nitrous oxide is produced during the biological transformation of mineral nitrogen. That
is to say, ammonium or nitrate from manure, residues, legumes and fertilizers may
release nitrous oxide as it is being reduced by denitrification or nitrfication. Therefore,
ensuring proper timing and application of nutrients will decrease the amount of nitrous
oxide emitted as well as nitrogen runoff and leaching.
In summary, climate change is a concern to the agricultural sector. Certain management
practices can reduce greenhouse gases and also, these same management practices can
help to reduce the impact of climate change on farms.
18
GHG Calculator
Peggy Strankman
Canadian Cattlemen's Association,
#215, 6715-8th Street N.E., Calgary, AB, T2E 7H7
StrankmanP@Cattle.ca
Peggy grew up in the dryland country of east central Alberta on a mixed cattle and
grain farm her family has owned for three generations. She obtained her Bachelor of
Science in Environmental Biology at the University of Calgary. She worked as a
biologist specializing in the identification of aquatic insect larvae. Peggy also
consulted as a geological draftsman before switching to the communications/public
relations field.
Peggy obtained her diploma in public relations from Mount Royal College. She is
currently Manager of Environmental Affairs for the Canadian Cattlemen's
Association where she has been for the past twelve years. Peggy also runs a small
farm outside of Airdrie, raising Arabians, Warmbloods and Wheaten Terriers.
Canada is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 % below the 1990
levels. There are six greenhouse gases in the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Each of these gases has a different global warming
potential and are compared to carbon dioxide, as CO2 equivalents. The most important
greenhouse gases related to agriculture are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
Since 1990, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from the agricultural sector have been
steadily increasing while carbon dioxide emissions have been decreasing. This is
significant because nitrous oxide and methane have a global warming potential of 310
and 21 times that of CO2.
Certain agricultural management practices can reduce emissions and possibly remove
carbon from the atmosphere. These practices include soil conservation practices, good
pasture management, converting marginal cropland to grass and wetland restoration.
Nitrous oxide emissions can be reduced by paying close attention to nutrient management
and applying the manure and nitrogen fertilizer according to crop uptake. Increasing feed
efficiency and changing the manure management can decrease methane emissions.
These practices should interest agricultural producers because most practices, which
reduce GHG emissions, also increase production efficiencies and profitability of
agricultural operations. In addition, producers who implement practices in verifiable,
quantifiable GHG emission reductions or increase carbon sequestration, may be able to
sell them into Carbon Trading markets in the future.
19
Large Industrial Emitters (LIE's) will be regulated in the amount of GHG emissions they
are allowed to emit. Therefore, these emitters will be looking to buy carbon credits so
that they can make gradual changes to their own production system. Though there is a
lot of uncertainty whether or not carbon credit trading will indeed become a reality, it is
to the producers own best interest to keep abreast the developments.
In order to help producers adopt good management practices on their farms, the federal
government is funding the Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Program. The Canadian
Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Pork Council, the Dairy Farmers of Canada and
the Soil Conservation Council of Canada all received money to set up demonstration sites
across the country to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing good management
practices.
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is intending to demonstrate management practices
that focus upon balancing winter rations, improving pasture productivity and grazing
management. Other focus areas may be identified in the future. As for extension
activities, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is providing producers with a
Greenhouse Gas Calculator which estimates the annual emission reductions in the current
year relative to the operation in 1990.
The Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Program will also attempt to collect economic data to
determine the financial advantage of implementing the management practices. It will
also keep producer informed of new practices identified to reduce GHG emissions,
increase carbon sequestration and carbon trading opportunities as they evolve.
In summary, the cattle industry has the opportunity to reduce emissions significantly by
adopting certain management practices. The greenhouse gas mitigation program can help
producers help each other understand how to adopt and use good management practices
for financial and environmental gain.
20
GHG Calculator
Peggy Strankman
Canadian Cattlemen's Association,
#215, 6715-8th Street N.E., Calgary, AB, T2E 7H7
StrankmanP@Cattle.ca
Peggy grew up in the dryland country of east central Alberta on a mixed cattle and
grain farm her family has owned for three generations. She obtained her Bachelor of
Science in Environmental Biology at the University of Calgary. She worked as a
biologist specializing in the identification of aquatic insect larvae. Peggy also
consulted as a geological draftsman before switching to the communications/public
relations field.
Peggy obtained her diploma in public relations from Mount Royal College. She is
currently Manager of Environmental Affairs for the Canadian Cattlemen's
Association where she has been for the past twelve years. Peggy also runs a small
farm outside of Airdrie, raising Arabians, Warmbloods and Wheaten Terriers.
Canada is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 % below the 1990
levels. There are six greenhouse gases in the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO 2),
methane (CH4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ). Each of these gases has a different global warming
potential and are compared to carbon dioxide, as CO2 equivalents. The most important
greenhouse gases related to agriculture are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
Since 1990, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from the agricultural sector have been
steadily increasing while carbon dioxide emissions have been decreasing. This is
significant because nitrous oxide and methane have a global warming potential of 310
and 21 times that of CO2 .
Certain agricultural management practices can reduce emissions and possibly remove
carbon from the atmosphere. These practices include soil conservation practices, good
pasture management, converting marginal cropland to grass and wetland restoration.
Nitrous oxide emissions can be reduced by paying close attention to nutrient management
and applying the manure and nitrogen fertilizer according to crop uptake. Increasing feed
efficiency and changing the manure management can decrease methane emissions.
These practices should interest agricultural producers because most practices, which
reduce GHG emissions, also increase production efficiencies and profitability of
agricultural operations. In addition, producers who implement practices in verifiable,
quantifiable GHG emission reductions or increase carbon sequestration, may be able to
sell them into Carbon Trading markets in the future.
19
Large Industrial Emitters (LIE's) will be regulated in the amount of GHG emissions they
are allowed to emit. Therefore, these emitters will be looking to buy carbon credits so
that they can make gradual changes to their own production system. Though there is a
lot of uncertainty whether or not carbon credit trading will indeed become a reality, it is
to the producers own best interest to keep abreast the developments.
In order to help producers adopt good management practices on their farms, the federal
government is funding the Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Program. The Canadian
Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Pork Council, the Dairy Farmers of Canada and
the Soil Conservation Council of Canada all received money to set up demonstration sites
across the country to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing good management
practices.
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is intending to demonstrate management practices
that focus upon balancing winter rations, improving pasture productivity and grazing
management. Other focus areas may be identified in the future. As for extension
activities, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is providing producers with a
Greenhouse Gas Calculator which estimates the annual emission reductions in the current
year relative to the operation in 1990.
The Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Program will also attempt to collect economic data to
determine the financial advantage of implementing the management practices. It will
also keep producer informed of new practices identified to reduce GHG emissions,
increase carbon sequestration and carbon trading opportunities as they evolve.
In summary, the cattle industry has the opportunity to reduce emissions significantly by
adopting certain management practices. The greenhouse gas mitigation program can help
producers help each other understand how to adopt and use good management practices
for financial and environmental gain.
20
Improved Management Practices in the Livestock Sector
Summary Report
by Nicole McLaughlin, March 2003
Sixty-five people including speakers attended the workshop "Improved Management
Practices in the Livestock Sector" which was held March 4 th & 5th at Keddy's in Moncton.
The weather was not favorable (snow storm) and it is assumed that if the weather was
better, there would have been more participants.
The objectives of the workshop were 1) to provide information to beef producers about
improved management practices in the beef industry, 2) to raise awareness about the link
between agriculture and greenhouse gases and what role agriculture can play to help
reduce emissions, 3) to provide an opportunity for producers from the Atlantic provinces
to network.
Participants from the three maritime provinces included producers, government
employees, greenhouse gas coordinators, agroenvironmental club coordinators and
journalists. They heard about the workshop either directly from extension specialists,
club coordinators or provincial cattle producer associations, via email, our web site or
through newspapers and newsletters.
There were 9 presentations in all. Each speaker had 30 minutes to present and questions
were handled as a panel discussion in the morning and another panel for the speakers in
the afternoon. We chose speakers based on their field of expertise and in order to get a
good cross section of the industry: government, research, producer, consultant, producer
organization, etc. The speakers did an excellent job. Speakers discussed pasture
management, role of community pastures in Atlantic Canada, alternate watering devices,
nutrient management planning, forage management, no -till forages and corn, beef
nutrition, management practices affecting greenhouse gases and the greenhouse gas
calculator.
Twenty-nine completed evaluation forms were received. Seven questions were asked and
here is a summary of each of the answers.
1. The location of the workshop was thought to be good. Moncton is central and it is easy
for all three provinces to get to. A few expressed some concerns about the facility.
2. Most thought that the length of the presentation was good. A couple thought that they
were too long and a few others thought they were too short.
3. The presentations were well understood by most.
21
Improving Management Practices in the Live stock Sector
4. In the case of other topics that should have been covered, there was a range of ideas.
Some asked for more information on manure/ compost with 7 such responses, others
listed biosolids, bmps (2), bmps and GHGs, land improvement and enhancement (2),
pasture finished beef (2), public education.
5. For the most important point that you will be taking away with you, many listed best
management practices, some gave specific examples and how this would affect GHG
emissions. Also listed were nutrient mangement, pasture management, water quality,
research is on track with farmers's needs, feed efficiency.
6. When asked what topic(s) that you would like to be revisited in the near future, all of
the topics that were discussed were mentionned, plus information on composting, manure
management, update across Canada, soil conservation, marketing, economics, finishing
beef on grass.
7. When asked if the participants had other comments, many remarked that they enjoyed
the workshop, they found it well organized, that the speakers were good, that they learned
something. Other specific comments included more time should be allowed for
discussion and questions, greenhouse gas presentation should have been first in order,
why not take information directly to producers at local meetings, should have worked
more with annual provincial beef conferences.
In summary, the workshop was well received. It was well organized and there was a lot
of enthusiasm about the workshop. I believe that people are interested in learning more
about better management practices. We need to continue to work with the provincial
cattle producer associations to deliver information.
22
Improving Management Practices in the Live stock Sector

- CCSE-SWCC

Transcription

Similar documents

Heifer International Cornerstones

Technical Sheet - Microbes Biosciences

http://pantip.com/topic/33863645 3 July,2015 - tsubohachi

Soot is Wrecking Your Engine Thursday May 8

What does Carbon look like in nature?

OTHER RESOURCES

See Flyer Pages 3 and 4 for Interior Photos

Greenhouse description .

8 Langa Simela NERPU

The Penn Township Campus Landscaping Beautification Project