News Update
Nov. 5, 2008

California’s Proposition 2 on Animal Housing Passes

The California ballot initiative on farm animal housing passed by a large margin as a result of yesterday’s elections, with 63% for to 37% against as of 5:30 a.m. Central, with 87% of the vote accounted for, Farm Futures reports.

Set to take effect in 2015, the initiative listed as Proposition 2 will effectively closes down the California egg industry, opponents say, and will affect the swine and veal industries.

According to Farm Futures, Proposition 2 will affect 95% of the state’s egg production and requires that all farm animals, “for all or the majority of any day,” not be confined or tethered in a manner that prevents an animal from lying down, standing up, turning around or extending its limbs without touching another animal or an enclosure such as a cage or stall. It specifically addresses modern cage housing for hens and stalls for sows and veal calves.

Farm Futures reports the proposition carries criminal penalties for violations, including fines and jail terms.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) released a statement today, saying implementation of the proposition should include the advice of veterinarians and animal welfare scientists.

“Now that the ballot initiative has passed, veterinarians and animal welfare scientists must be involved in its implementation to make sure that resulting changes in animal housing actually improve conditions for the animals they are intended to help. If we’re not careful, animal health and welfare problems could be precipitated that are as significant as the concerns Proposition 2 aspires to address,” Ron DeHaven, AVMA chief executive officer (CEO), said.

Close to $16 million was spent by those promoting their views on Proposition 2 in California, according to AVMA, which sets new standards for livestock housing in that state. DeHaven points out that the same investment could have gone a long way toward improving conditions for livestock across the country if it had been used to help develop science-based and practical solutions to animal welfare problems.

“We agree that more attention needs to be paid to the behavioral well being of production animals. In doing so, we don’t want to be singularly focused on just providing additional space, as is the case with Prop 2. For example, moving laying hens to free-range production systems may allow them to engage in more species-typical behaviors, but it also increases the hens’ risks of illness and injury because it increases their exposure to disease vectors and predators,” explains Gail Golab, head of the AVMA’s Animal Welfare Division.

Golab says the AVMA can help California producers protect the welfare of their animals by providing information gained from research at home and abroad on alternative production systems.

“We can use this information to help avoid animal welfare pitfalls as we assist California farmers in meeting the requirements of Proposition 2,” Golab explains.
For information, visit www.avma.org.

K-State Livestock Manure Management Conference Slated for Nov. 18

Among the myriad challenges livestock producers face on a day-to-day basis, there is at least one constant — the issue of manure management, including capturing its full value. To help livestock producers of all operation sizes address this challenge, Kansas State University (K-State) and K-State’s Beef Cattle Institute will host a Livestock Manure Management Conference Nov. 18 in Garden City. The event starts with registration at 10 a.m. in the K-State Research and Extension Southwest Area Office at 4500 E. Mary St. The program will begin at 10:30 a.m. Presentations and presenters will include:

• Feed ingredients influence diet nutrient level — Justin Waggoner, K-State southwest area beef systems specialist;
• Diet impacts nutrient excretion and land needs — Joel DeRouchey, K-State Extension livestock specialist;
• Determining the economic value of manure — Mandy Fox, Kansas Livestock Association Environmental Services Inc.;
• Composting and changes in value — Joe Harner, K-State Extension specialist in biological and agricultural engineering;
• Legality of manure and crop nutrient removal — Terry Medley, Kansas Department of Health and Environment Livestock Waste Management chief; and  
• Agronomics of manure and crop nutrient removal — Dorivar Ruiz-Diaz, K-State soil fertility and nutrient management specialist.

A live webcast will be available for those who are not able to travel to Garden City. (Contact Chris Reinhardt for additional webcast information at 785-532-1672 or cdr3@ksu.edu.) The advance registration fee of $15 includes lunch and is due by Nov. 11. The fee to participate in the webcast is $20 and to register at the door is $25. More information about registration and the event itself is available on the web at http://www.asi.ksu.edu/manure or by calling Justin Waggoner in the K-State Research and Extension Southwest Area office at 620-275-9164. 

— Release provided by K-State Research and Extension.

Profit Tip: Backgrounding Alternatives: Grazing or Feedot?

Backgrounding fall-weaned calves is commonly considered by both stocker/backgrounding operators and cow-calf producers wanting to retain ownership of their calves. Two of the primary alternatives for backgrounding calves include grazing either crop residue or grass pasture and placing them in a feedlot or growing lot. As the price of corn and roughages used in feedlot backgrounding situations has increased, producers are likely to focus more on crop residue or grass pasture backgrounding. However, the cost of gain in grazing backgrounding programs has also increased as land prices (i.e., rental rates for crop residue and pasture) have risen dramatically.

Using budgets developed for a wintering backgrounding system to grow 525-pound (lb.) steers to 750 lb. from Dec. 1 to April 30, a cost of gain of $83 per hundredweight (cwt.) is forecasted for this next winter. This assumes grazing corn stalks, valued at $0.16 per head per day, and supplementation of 5 lb. per day of wet corn gluten feed [WCGF; dry matter (DM) basis] valued at $105 per ton on an as-is basis [95% of an expected corn price of $5.94 per bushel (bu.)]. Additionally, it includes variable costs like yardage ($0.20 per head per day), veterinary/medical, death loss and interest on the variable costs, feed costs and calf. Thus, total winter backgrounding costs are projected to be $67 per head.

Putting another 200 lb. on that same winter backgrounded steer by grazing on summer grass pasture from May 1 to Sept. 15 is projected to be less expensive. Based on a grass rental cost of $29 per animal unit month (AUM) and variable costs that include interest, death loss, veterinary/medical and transportation, the cost of gain for backgrounding a 750-lb. steer to 950 lb. next summer is $64 per cwt. The cost of gain for the winter and summer grazing combined averages to $74 per cwt.

Cost of gain in the feedlot or growing lot varies widely depending upon the feedstuffs used. For the backgrounding in the feedlot alternative to be better than the grazing alternatives, the cost of gain would have to be less than the projected gains above. So, if the first 225 lb. could be put on the calves in the feedlot for less than $83 per cwt., the feedlot would be optimal choice. Based on forecasted corn prices near $6 per bu. for the winter backgrounding months, this isn’t likely to be the cheaper alternative this year. Assuming that distillers’ grains, gluten feed and silage increases proportionally with corn prices, the projected cost of gain for backgrounding the calves in the feedlot is generally around $100 per cwt.

One significant difference between the two systems, however, must also be considered. Weight gain generally occurs faster in the feedlot than in the grazing program, so the same calf will reach a given weight sooner in the feedlot. This has implications for marketing and timing sales. For example, adding 225 lb. in the winter grazing program will take until late April, whereas the same calf would reach approximately 750 lb. by late February in the feedlot. So, depending upon price changes between February and April, the actual returns to the grazing and feedlot backgrounding systems will differ, despite the relative cost of gain differences.

— by Darrell R. Mark, University of Nebraska Extension livestock marketing specialist; Rebecca M. Small, graduate research assistant; and Galen E. Erickson, Extension feedlot management specialist.

— compiled by Crystal Albers, associate editor, Angus Productions Inc.