A Publication of:
OSU Extension - Fairfield County
831 College Ave., Suite D, Lancaster, OH 43130
and the
BEEF Cattle questions may be directed to the OSU Extension BEEF Team through Stephen Boyles or Stan Smith, Editor
You may subscribe to the weekly Ohio BEEF Cattle letter by sending an e-mail to smith.263@osu.edu
Previous issues of the BEEF Cattle letter
Issue # 641
Forage Focus: Will clipping pasture reduce the incidence of pinkeye?
In last week's Ohio BEEF Cattle letter, Rory Lewandowski discussed the pros and cons of clipping the seed heads from pasture plants in his article To Clip or Not to Clip. Several questions from readers resulted in regard to whether clipping pastures should be viewed as a method of reducing, or even preventing pinkeye in pastured cattle. Below, Dr. Shulaw, OSU Extension beef and sheep veterinarian, offers his response to those questions:
Pinkeye, as it is usually named and defined in textbooks, is caused by a bacterial infection of the surface of the eyeball and the inner surfaces of the lids. Its technical name is infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis (infectious=caused by an infecting organism; kerato=referring to the cornea of the eye; conjunctiv = referring to the pink tissues of the eyelids and the other soft red tissues of the eyeball; and "itis" = inflammation). The cause for this disease is usually given as the bacteria, Moraxella bovis. In recent years a couple of additional bacteria have been incriminated as causing pinkeye. Unfortunately, the bacteria that cause this disease are commonly carried by a few animals that show no signs of disease and serve to introduce it to a new herd when those animals are added to it or that keep the bacteria on the farm to expose a new group of susceptible animals to it. Most animals that recover from the disease clear the infection from their eye tissues; sometimes all of them do. The body's immune response is responsible for this and serves to help keep the animal from getting it again. This is why sometimes it appears in a cow herd with both cows and calves affected by it, but it eventually disappears by the end of the summer. If one or more carriers remain, it sometimes appears again the next year but usually only in the animals that weren't affected the previous year such as new calves or heifers housed at another location the previous year.
The presence of seed heads on tall stems does not, by itself, cause pinkeye. The presence of seed heads can be a factor causing some eye irritation as the cows and calves graze. Of course, so are dusts, pollen, strong sunlight, and face flies - all considered predisposing factors. But the causative bacteria have to be present, and at least a few non-immune animals have to be present, before the disease appears. And not all the predisposing factors have to be present to have the disease appear. Pinkeye in a non-grazing dairy herd can be a nightmare to deal with to which I can attest from personal experience; several times.
The disease often disappears from a herd after a couple of grazing seasons without any special preventive efforts like vaccination or pasture clipping. I suspect that this is caused by the eventual exposure and development of a good immune response by almost all the cows with the carrier cows eventually clearing the infection from their eyes. Unfortunately, there are several strains of Moraxella bovis out there, and it is a pretty safe bet that the available vaccines do not provide good protection for all of them. Therefore, it is not uncommon to see the disease reappear in a herd previously infected if new animals carrying a different strain are introduced or if the herd grazes close to another herd that has the disease. Face flies can carry the bacteria on their body for up to three days, and can transmit it between animals and between herds. The disease can also be spread cow-to-cow by close facial contact such as around feeders. The bacteria are in the tears. I have never seen any evidence to support that seed heads or other inanimate objects are involved in the spread of the disease from animal-to-animal, but the bacteria certainly are mechanically transmitted by flies, so I suppose it could occur in just the right circumstances.
Pinkeye demonstrates a well-known principle in infectious diseases. Disease usually occurs only when there is a susceptible host (in this case a non-immune cow), an infectious agent (Moraxella bovis for pinkeye), and environmental conditions that favor infection of the host (irritation of the eye to create tears that attract the flies and that favor the attachment of the bacteria to eye tissues). Infectious agents involved in many diseases are relatively common in most cattle herds, but disease isn't usually observed until the other two criteria are present. I have written about this concept in several past articles in the Ohio BEEF Cattle Letter especially in regard to calf scours. This is why management of animals and their environment to reduce the concentrations of infectious agents and the stresses on the animals is so important in the reduction of disease.
In Rory's thoughtful article, he presents some considerations for making the decision to clip or not to clip. If you are currently experiencing a pinkeye outbreak or if you are purchasing stocker calves from multiple sources for summer grazing, clipping pastures to remove irritating seed heads and stems may be helpful. If it really costs $15 per acre to clip pastures, I suspect that an equal amount of money spent on other pinkeye prevention strategies, such as not mixing groups of animals just before or during face fly season if carrier animals might be present, judicious vaccine use, and effective face fly control, might be more cost effective than pasture clipping for routine prevention of pinkeye.
Another reader's related question of Dr. Shulaw asked if vaccinations could effectively prevent pinkeye. Following is Dr. Shulaw's response:
There are multiple strains of Moraxella bovis in the US cattle population. This "strain" designation is based on the nature of the little hairs that project out of the bacteria called "pili". These structures allow the bacteria to attach to the eye so it can do its dirty work. Without them, it can't attach. The body's immune system responds to these pili as well as other components of the bacteria. If the immune response can correctly and efficiently target the pili, the bacteria can't attach and the disease is prevented. Vaccine manufacturers have improved vaccines significantly in the past 20 years by learning how to grow and harvest the bacteria so that the pili are expressed in the vaccine and stimulate a response. The "fly in the ointment", so to speak, is that there are more strains out there than we have vaccines for. If the body makes an immune response to pili in a vaccine that are different from those on the bacteria to which the animals are exposed, you likely won't get good protection. Since laboratory testing for the different strains isn't widely available, you don't know until you try a vaccine in the face of an exposure whether it is likely to help. To further complicate, the vaccines are given by injection and we are trying to stimulate a local response on the surface of the eye. This is called "mucosal immunity" and it is notoriously difficult to achieve with injectable vaccines. This may change in the future, but for all the diseases that occur on mucosal surfaces (like in the respiratory and GI tract), it is a problem to overcome. The currently available vaccines can be very helpful, but they are not always completely protective. There is a lot of research going on with this disease, especially in Australia and some here, because of the major economic losses it creates. Vaccines should always be administered according to manufacturer's directions and the timing should be such that the vaccine series is completed before typical pinkeye season by about 4-6 weeks to allow time for the maximal effect. This is especially important if you are using products that require, or even suggest, two doses in previously unvaccinated animals. Lastly, there is good evidence that modified live IBR vaccines, when administered during an outbreak of pinkeye, can make the problem worse so that should be avoided.
In the past decade or so diagnostic laboratories have found that at least two other bacteria may cause a disease that looks a lot like pinkeye. One is Branhamella ovis and the other is Mycoplasma bovoculi. Vaccine against Moraxella bovis doesn't do any good for these bacteria, and to my knowledge there are no vaccines for these bacteria. I received an email a couple of weeks ago from a veterinarian dealing with a stubborn herd problem where vaccine didn't seem to be helping. In those kinds of situations, it is always good to culture several typical eyes, before any treatment is given, and to perhaps take a small tissue biopsy to send to the diagnostic laboratory to see what kind of problem you are dealing with.
The Economics of Animal Welfare Regulations Proposed for Ohio - Luther Tweeten, Emeritus Chaired Professor, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) seeks to phase out battery cages for Ohio's laying hens, gestation crates for its pregnant pigs, and crates for veal calves in favor of group housing (FarmPolicy [farmpolicy@gmail.com], May 5, 2009). As the nation's second largest producer of eggs (27 million laying hens) and a major producer of swine and dairy cattle, Ohio agriculture has a major stake in the outcome of this HSUS effort.
HSUS is likely to put its proposal before Ohio voters next year if poultry and livestock producers don't cooperate with HSUS to write legislation changing the way producers operate. This is no idle threat. Last year California voters approved a similar measure (Proposition 2 or Prop 2) mandating as of January 1, 2015 that it shall be a misdemeanor for any person to confine a pregnant pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a manner not allowing the animal to turn around freely, stand up, lie down, and fully extend its limbs. At least four other states have passed laws similar to California's Proposition 2.
Is such legislation a good idea? The following discussion is especially focused on laying hens, the enterprise likely to be most affected in Ohio. The following analysis addresses animal welfare dimensions of Prop 2-type regulations before addressing the economic dimensions.
Animal Welfare: First, it is important to recognize that nearly everyone including persons associated with large confinement feeding operations supports humane treatment of animals. At issue is what constitutes humane treatment. On the one hand, large confinement cage or crate operations would seem to reduce animal welfare by inhibiting the freedom of animals for nesting, sex, and exercise (Shields and Duncan 2009, pp. 2-5). Proponents contend that Prop 2-type legislation will enhance animal welfare, provide healthier food because animals will contract fewer air-borne diseases, and will reduce soil, water, and air pollution.
On the other hand, confinement is associated with protection of animals from extreme temperatures, predators, and soil-borne diseases and parasites. Animals in confinement can be monitored closely for health. Confinement systems deliver fresh, clean eggs to consumers. Confinement operations use less land, labor, and other resources per animal unit. Opponents of Prop 2-type legislation contend that with sound management, large confinement operations have demonstrated they can produce food at low cost to consumers without harming the environment or animal welfare.
The public looks to objective scientific findings to narrow differences of opinion between supporters and opponents of Prop 2-type measures. That strategy has met with only partial success as apparent from studies measuring how specific engineering-type provisions (such as space provided per animal) affect animal welfare. In Austria for example, Zaludik et al. (2007) evaluated the usefulness of the government's Animal Needs Index (ANI) auditing how hen welfare is affected by floor space, feeder space, and the like for organic laying hen production. No relationship was found between a good score on the ANI and hen welfare as assessed by mortality, injury, measures of abnormal behavior, and footpad and breast lesions. This and other empirical studies give conflicting results regarding the contribution of a "favorable" environment to animal welfare (Shields and Duncan 2009, pp. 12, 13). After an excellent review of existing scientific studies, Mench et al. (2009, p. 44) conclude that "…we still have little understanding of how all of the complex inputs on commercial farms (whether those are husbandry inputs or genetic inputs) interact to cause or minimize animal welfare problems."
Economic Implications: The economic implications of Prop 2-type regulations imposed on Ohio's agriculture are more clear than the foregoing animal welfare implications. Market forces help protect animals to the extent that abused and diseased animals reduce profits, forcing animal producers to use more humane practices. In part out of concern for animal product demand and profit, the livestock (including poultry) industry has voluntarily changed production practices. Experts on animal welfare and ethics, though noting the absence of federal regulation of animal production, cite the recent voluntary development and enforcement of animal care standards by producer groups and retailers. Animal welfare scientists (Mench et al., 2009, p.2) conclude that "These standards have resulted in some striking improvements in animal welfare…" along the entire supply chain of animals and their products.
Socially acceptable production practices for animal welfare ultimately rest on the public's values and attitudes and not just on science. Such values range from indifferent observers to animal rightists who object to animal confinement and would end use of animals as sources of food, clothing (leather), fiber, draft-power, or companionship (pets). Even among those who make animal products a part of their diet, the range of preferred animal production practices stretches from conventional to organic, to free range. Markets can serve discriminating consumers over this broad range of preferences. The key is to label animal products by production practices. Preferred animal welfare practices may be more costly to producers, but consumers can "vote" their preferences with dollars in the market.
Labeling, a means for producers to receive premium prices for humane and more costly animal welfare practices, seems an ideal solution because it allows each consumer to uniquely express demand for traditional or enhanced animal welfare practices in the market. Mench et al. (2009, p.3) note that such labeling has attracted few customers. That is, animal welfare enhanced products remain a small, niche market, suggesting either that consumers are not well informed or they place little value on these enhanced production practices.
Disappointed with outcomes, the Humane Society of the United States (not to be confused with and not affiliated with your less activist local Humane Society) seeks public intervention in Ohio with government regulation to reach its animal welfare objectives well beyond what market labeling and voluntary industry reforms have achieved.
Animal welfare and environmental regulations are unlikely to eliminate the current cost advantage of large farms over small farms. Numerous studies indicate that the cost of producing a unit of animal products is lower on large farms than on small farms (see Tweeten 2003, p. 85). Most such studies can be faulted for including only costs to farms. That is, the economic studies ignore full incremental cost of production which includes environmental or animal welfare costs accruing to society but not to farms (externalities in economist's jargon). However, experts such as Martin and Zering (1997, p.20) and Boehlje et al. (1996) conclude that unit production costs would be lower on large farms than on small farms even if all externalities were internalized. Other things equal, risk increases with scale of operations. But economies of size provide the wherewithal for larger farms to afford the able management required to cope with risk.
Prop 2 for California is similar to HSUS' proposal for Ohio. In addition, livestock production conditions in Ohio are sufficiently similar to those in California so that economic analysis for California provided a strong basis to begin assessing the situation in Ohio. Scientists at the University of California-Davis (Sumner et al. 2008, p. 36) concluded that under Prop 2 "variable costs of production [for eggs in California] would rise by at least 20 percent and perhaps substantially more. Underlying these higher costs per dozen eggs are higher feed use per bird, higher cost per pullet, lower average productive life of a hen, higher mortality rates, fewer eggs of premium size or acceptable marketability, fewer birds per facility, and higher labor costs." Other studies have estimated that total cost per dozen eggs are 26 percent higher for barn production and 45 percent higher with free range production compared to conventional cage egg production (Agra CEAS 2004, p.45).
Ohio is surrounded by states with competitive laying hen enterprises. Indiana's 24 million average number of laying hens and Pennsylvania's 21 million hens were not far behind Ohio's average inventory of 27 million hens in 2007. Eggs produced under conventional cage systems in surrounding states would have a 20 percent or more cost advantage over Ohio's farms producing under Prop 2-type regulations. Ohio laying hen producers would not be competitive. To protect its producers, California has proposed trade barriers to egg imports from other states. Such barriers seem unachievable because they conflict with the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. constitution and likely would be ruled unconstitutional.
In short, according to Sumner et al. (2008, iv): Our analysis [of Proposion 2 regulations applied to California agriculture] indicates that the expected impact would be the almost complete elimination of egg production in California within the six-year adjustment period. Non-cage production costs are simply too far above the costs of the cage systems used in other states to allow California producers to compete with imported eggs in the conventional egg market. The most likely outcome, therefore, is the elimination of almost all of the California egg industry over a few years.
The authors noted the exception of a very small residual of local specialty producers that would supply part of the California market for eggs produced in non-cage systems.
Sumner et al. (2008, pp. 46-47) go on to add that: The elimination of most of the California egg industry would have broader economic implications. The loss of about 3,000 jobs in the industry would be multiplied by a factor of about 0.9 to imply a statewide loss of jobs of about 5,750 jobs. The loss in overall economic activity in the state is also larger than the gross [egg] sales of about $370 million in 2007 because of the ripple effects that affect upstream and downstream industries.
Conclusions: Who would be the economic gainers and losers from imposition of Prop 2-type regulations on Ohio's agriculture? Ohio would lose: laborers, livestock and crop producers, and the economy as a whole. Ohio's laying hen enterprise, second only in the nation to that of Iowa and 38 percent greater than that of California in 2007, would be decimated. Applying the latter percentage to the available estimate of job loss in California, Ohio's loss from Prop 2-type legislation would total 7,928 jobs and associated income.
Diminished animal agriculture means diminished crop agriculture in Ohio-less demand for livestock means less demand for corn and soybeans. The state's livestock agriculture directly consumed 22 percent of the state's corn crop and a sizable percentage of the soybean crop in 2008. Including distillers' grain byproducts (from corn feedstock for ethanol production) and corn silage, some 30 percent of the state's corn crop is fed to its livestock.
Ohio's consumers would lose as workers and income-earners, but Ohioans would face little if any higher food prices with imposition of Prop 2-type regulations as surrounding states supply low-cost animal products. Thus other states would gain jobs and income at Ohio's expense as animal products consumed in Ohio would be produced elsewhere. Those products would be produced using current practices, so overall animal welfare would be unaffected.
To avoid interstate trade that abrogates the intended animal welfare gains from Prop 2-type regulations, the HSUS can be expected to pursue national legislation to impose regulations on all U.S. livestock producers. Even if such measures were enacted they would be severely undermined over time by livestock product imports from Canada, Mexico, and other countries-often under animal welfare conditions below Ohio's standards.
References
Agra CEAS Consulting Ltd. ( December 2004) "Study on the Socio-economic Implications of the Various Systems to Keep Laying Hens." Final Report for the European Commission. Submitted by Agra CEAS Consulting Ltd.
Boehlje, M. (1996) "Industrialization of Agriculture: What are the Choices?" Choices. First quarter, pp.30-33.
Martin, L. and K. Zering (1997). "Relationships between Industrialized Agriculture and Environmental Consequences: The Case of Vertical Coordination in Broilers and Hogs." Staff Paper 97-6. East Lansing: Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University.
Mench, Joy A., Harvey James,, Edmond A. Pajor, and Paul B. Thompson (2009). "The Welfare of Animals in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations." Davis, CA: Department of Animal Science.
Shields, Sara and Ian Duncan. "An HSUS Report: A Comparison of the Welfare of Hens in Battery Cages and Alternative Systems." Washington, DC: Humane Society of the United States, 2009.
Sumner, Daniel A., J. Thomas Rosen-Molina, William A. Matthews, Joy A. Mench and Kurt R. Richter (July 2008) " Economic Effects of Proposed Restrictions on Egg-laying Hen Housing in California." Davis, CA: University of California Agricultural Issues Center.
Tweeten, Luther (2003). Terrorism, Radicalism, and Populism in Agriculture. Ames: Iowa State Press.
Zaludik, K., A. Lugmair, R. Baumung, J. Troxler. and K. Niebuhr (2007). "Results of the Animal Needs Index (ANI-35L) Compared to Animal-based Parameters in Free-range and Organic Laying Hen Flocks in Austria." Animal Welfare, 16: 217-219.
Cow Slaughter, Prices, and the Dairy Buyout - Tim Petry, Livestock Marketing Economist, North Dakota State University Extension Service
The feeder cattle marketing season has ended in the Northern Plains and many livestock auction markets are starting reduced summer schedules. However, a number of Northern Plains' auctions are reporting higher than expected receipts of beef cows. For example, in the last week of May a central North Dakota auction reported selling several hundred beef cows when only about 100 were expected. This surprised both the market and the cow buyers. In talking with beef producers, there were likely two reasons for the increased marketing. First of all, there were significantly more calf deaths this spring in parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana due to record snowfall, several severe spring snow storms and unprecedented flooding. Calf deaths are continuing as problems with scours and pneumonia, a result of weather stress, persist. So, cows that have lost calves are being sold. In addition, producers indicated they wanted to market cows before the Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) dairy cow buyout program started. Beef cow producers were afraid that the increased dairy cow marketing may depress cow prices. The CWT buyout accepted 102,898 cows for the program. It is anticipated that from 7,000 to 10,000 head of cows will be marketed each week from late May into August. Details of the buyout are available at www.cwt.coop. The latest cow slaughter information reported by USDA-AMS is for the week ended May 23. USDA reported 52,600 dairy cows and 65,100 beef cows were slaughtered during the week. This compares to 45,400 dairy cows and 75,500 beef cows slaughtered during the same week in 2008. So, dairy cow slaughter was up 7,200 from the previous year. However, beef cow slaughter was down 10,400 head, more than offsetting the increased dairy cow slaughter (see Beef Cow Slaughter chart). So, even though more beef cows are coming to market in the Northern Plains, fewer are being sold in other areas of the U.S. than last year.
The main reasons for lower beef cow slaughter are that slaughter was relatively high last year (see chart), so heavy culling has already taken place. And, pasture and range conditions are better than last year as reported in last week's "In The Cattle Markets" article. This year's trend of higher dairy cow and lower beef cow slaughter should continue throughout the summer. So, the impact of both on cow prices should be somewhat offsetting. After increasing seasonally for several months, cow prices declined the last two weeks as both dairy and beef cow slaughter increased and the beef market struggled. The rate of the last two week's decline is not expected to continue, but prices are not likely to reach last summer's record levels either. A trading range in prices near levels of the last few weeks is likely during the summer, unless pasture and range conditions deteriorate and beef cow marketing increases. Seasonal weakness can be expected again in the fall when normal beef cow culling occurs.
Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodity Market Report - Mike Roberts, Commodity Marketing Agent, Virginia Tech
LIVE CATTLE futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) fell on Monday. The JUNE''09LC contract closed at $79.900/cwt; down $0.525/cwt but $0.375/cwt higher than last report. The AUG''09LC contract closed off $0.775/cwt at $80.825/cwt but $0.200/cwt higher than this time last week. DEC''09LC futures closed at $87.825/cwt; down $1.000/cwt and $0.775/cwt lower than last report. All livestock tracked with the other sliding commodities. Cash cattle were steady in the U.S. Plains with USDA placing the 5-area price at $81.84/cwt, $0.22/cwt lower than last Monday. At noon Monday USDA placed the Choice Boxed Beef cutout at $139.52/cwt, $0.44/cwt lower than last report. Retail sales are moving slow and low. According to HedgersEdge.com average packer margins were raised $30.25/head to a positive $16.70/head based on the average buy of $81.79/cwt vs. the average breakeven of $83.08/cwt. It is a good idea to keep sales current. U.S. corn prices may be readying for a seasonal slump.
FEEDER CATTLE at the CME were off on Monday. AUG''09FC futures finished at $97.200/cwt; off $0.425/cwt but $1.350/cwt lower than last report. The OCT''09FC contract closed at $97.825/cwt; off $0.800/cwt from last Friday''s close but $1.050/cwt lower than this time last week. Profit taking on long liquidation, lower commodities across the board, and weak outside markets weighed on prices. Sliding corn prices provided late support. Demand has been scattered with feeders in Oklahoma City selling $1-$3/cwt lower. The latest CME Feeder Cattle Index for June 12 was off $1.63/cwt to $96.19/cwt; $2.56/cwt lower than a week ago. Corn prices are expected to weaken further.
Visit the OSU Beef Team calendar of meetings and upcoming events
BEEF Cattle is a weekly publication of Ohio State University Extension in Fairfield County and the OSU Beef Team. Contributors include members of the Beef Team and other beef cattle specialists and economists from across the U.S.
All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status. Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Admin. and Director, OSU Extension. TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868
Fairfield County Agriculture and Natural Resources
