SHEEP/BEEF NOTES

Intervet Livestock eNews

September 2000

Livestock enews is derived from SAC Sheep Beef Notes. Please credit SAC with copyright if articles are reproduced in newsletters substantially unchanged. The views expressed are not necessarily those of Intervet UK ltd.

RETAINING HOMEBRED LAMBS AS STORES

With the current availability of good grass over much of the country, it is likely that some farmers who would normally sell their lamb crop are now thinking about retaining at least some as stores. This has certain health advantages over the producer who purchase store lambs. Not only do the lambs avoid the stress of marketing, transportation and mixing, with all the attendant health risks, but the previous treatment history of the lambs is already known by the shepherd - which is often not the case when buying-in stores. This should avoid any unnecessary and costly treatments.

Those who do not normally fatten their own lambs must consider the preventative health measures they wish to take. Lambs need to be free from gut worms and liver fluke if they are to perform well. Infectious diseases such as pasteurellosis or clostridial infections can quickly eat into profits if a number of lambs die.

With tight margins likely to apply there is an obvious temptation to make savings by stopping preventative treatments, although this usually carries a degree of risk. For example, savings made by cutting back on the use of anthelmintics can quickly evaporate if lamb growth rates suffer. The logical approach here it to have lamb dung samples checked for the presence of worm eggs. If six or more lambs are sampled and their pooled dung sample is free from parasite eggs, then it is very unlikely that worms are having a detrimental effect on lamb growth. However when even low worm egg counts are found, treatment is required.

The vaccines commonly used in store lambs are those against pasteurellosis and the clostridial diseases. Outbreaks of these diseases can lead to significant numbers of deaths, and the use of a combined vaccine should be considered particularly if losses from these diseases have been suffered in past years. One false economy is to give a single dose of vaccine to lambs when the manufacturers recommendation is for two. This is a complete waste of money – which costs half the price of effective vaccination, but provides absolutely no protection to the lambs.

If you decide not to vaccinate then it is essential that sudden or unexplained losses amongst the lamb group are investigated in order to establish cause death. Once a diagnosis has been established, advice may be offered to reduce further losses. Unfortunately the costs of unexpected deaths can easily add up to more than a course of vaccine.

Lambs seriously deficient in copper, selenium or cobalt will fail to thrive. However it is certain that many lambs receive trace element supplementation unnecessarily. If you know that your area is deficient in one or more of the trace elements, or if a deficiency has been diagnosed in previous batches of lambs, then the use of supplements is fully justified. Likewise if a batch of lambs is failing to thrive, a trace element investigation may be called for. Blood samples from half a dozen lambs may be checked for trace element levels, and at the same time there could be a check for worm eggs (and where necessary fluke eggs) to make sure that's not the problem. Although these tests may call for money up-front, they can often save much more cash by preventing unnecessary drenching or injections.

DON’T OVER ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF WET AUTUMN GRASS

The situation this autumn in many parts of the country is plentiful supplies of lush – low dry matter grass. The dry matter of the grass is often further reduced when it rains.

Although this appears to be capable of maintaining high levels of performance, in reality animal performance will be surprisingly low due to a combination of factors:

- The low dry matter content of the grass reducing DM intakes, particularly for young, small cattle. Previous work in Wales shows a 22% reduction in dry matter intake for grass with a dry matter content of only 15% (achieved by watering it with a watering can) compared with the same grass at 22% dry matter.

- Even with the same leaf content autumn grass supplies approximately 15% less energy to the cattle compared to similar spring grass.

- A shortening day length will mean that cattle will spend less time grazing.

To maintain target performance levels supplementation will still be required, particularly for younger animals. This would include creep feeding spring born calves, weaned autumn born calves if they are to be sold store this autumn or finished at home next winter but not if they are going to be carried over to next summer to collect the second BSPS payment. Supplementary feeding will also be essential for animals targeted for finishing off grass this year if housing them later this autumn is to be avoided.

Bigger cattle particularly suckler cows will be able to make use of the excess grass this autumn – other than the potential increased risk of magnesium tetany.

A HIGH RISK OF MAGNESIUM TETANY

The continuing wet, humid weather is maintaining high levels of grass growth. As a result, silage/hay fields have regrown rapidly producing lush leafy aftermaths very similar in composition to spring grass. This has resulted in the same conditions that cause spring tetany.

Already we have received phone calls from people who had spring calvers die of magnesium tetany soon after they have been turned onto such lush aftermaths. To prevent this occurring it would be sensible to re-introduce protection against magnesium tetany eg magnesium licks etc when turning cows onto such aftermaths. The most susceptible cows would be early calving autumn calvers with very early spring calvers (eg February calvers) less at risk due to their lower milk yield.

WORMING OF CATTLE AT HOUSING

The major gut and lungworms of cattle have developed survival strategies to ensure that there are worms about in the spring of the year to continue the infection. When the infective larvae of the gut worms are eaten along with grass in the latter half of the grazing season a proportion of them enter a dormant phase in the stomach and gut lining of the cattle. In the spring of the year these dormant stages are reactivated and burst through the lining of the gut and resume their life cycle.

The significance of this is twofold. Firstly they cause a lot of damage to the gut. This results in diarrhoea which can be so severe as to kill the animal. This is called type 2 disease. Secondly the worms produce eggs that will spread infection on the pasture and result in another generation of worms to cause problems in the next grazing season. In general these parasites are short-lived, but lungworms can live in the pasture for a long enough period to last from one grazing season to the next and therefore have no need to go through a dormant phase of infection in the animal.

Dosing at housing is therefore vital to remove the burden of worms both dormant and active in order to:

- prevent type 2 disease in the spring

- to break the life cycle of the parasites

- to ensure that worms are not depressing the animals’ ability to make the most of their food in the housing period.

What types of stock require to be wormed at housing?

In general all young stock should be dosed, while adult cattle are immune to the worms. Some benefit may be achieved from dosing adults, but it is unlikely to cost effective and the standard advice is that adults do not need to be wormed.

Does it matter what the worm control programme in the summer was?

Not really. With the exception of a clean grazing programme most other programmes do not result in absolute control of the parasite, particularly in the last month or so of the grazing season.

What type of wormer should be used?

Both the white wormers such as Panacur and the avermectin group are effective against the inhibited worm larvae. However the levamisole group is not effective at this time and should not be used as the housing dose.

When is the best time to worm the cattle in relation to housing?

If using one of the white wormers cattle should be dosed several days after housing to ensure all worms are at the susceptible stage. Just how critical this is open to question and in most cases acceptable results will be achieved when these products are used on the day of housing.

More flexibility is achieved if one of the avermectin group is used as they have persistent activity and can therefore be used prior to housing the cattle when they are still grazing. On the face of it this may seem to be unnecessary, however it actually makes sense where lungworm is known to be a problem, removing the worms when they are at grass, preventing reinfection and reducing the risk of pneumonia in the period immediately after housing. This can be done at the same time as vaccination against pneumonia viruses.

How do you make sure you get the best programme for your own herd?

It is always best to discuss the fine detail of worm control programmes with your own vet to ensure you make most economical and effective use of the products available.

MANAGING TO PREVENT PNEUMONIA

Pneumonia is a costly disease and pneumonia prevention is a vital part of suckled calf management systems. The key points are

Viruses are the major trigger for the pneumonia of suckled calves. Bacteria such as Pasteurella follow on growing in the damaged airways and lungs.

Vaccination against the viruses and in particular RSV is one of the most useful preventive strategies.

For maximum effectiveness vaccination must be completed before the pneumonia risk period. This means the vaccination programme is carried out at grass and completed two weeks before housing. Where calves are purchased you should either buy from a supplier who will vaccinate the calves according to your vet's advice prior to you bringing them home OR where calves come through a market you should keep them in well-fenced accessible paddocks for 6 weeks when you get them home and vaccinate according to your vet's advice.

Housing and ventilation in particular have an important impact on the disease. If you have pneumonia problems you should have the ventilation assessed now and correct inlet or outlet ventilation as advised and stick to the recommended stocking density. Drainage of surface water and drainage from the pens should also be assessed.

Removing lungworm prior to housing is advised. See article on worming.

Plan a proper control programme with your vet. A written document should be produced to make sure that all agreed points are understood and implemented. GC

USING EBVs TO SELECT CHAROLAIS BULLS TO AVOID

CALVING DIFFICULTIES

The British Charolais Cattle Society have commissioned SAC to evaluate two Charolais bulls per year on the commercial cows in the SAC spring calving herd at Edinburgh. With the increasing shortage of labour on farms, emphasis has been placed on quantifying the Calving Ease EBV for Charolais bulls used across mature, commercial spring calving suckler cows.

The two bulls used to supply semen for the 1999 mating season were selected in terms of their different Calving Ease EBVs (+0.8 v –6.3) while still having good EBVs for growth and carcass traits. This spring 19 calves (plus one set of twins) sired by bull C and 25 sired by bull D were born.

Gestation Length

Both bulls had negative EBVs for gestation length indicating that their calves would be born earlier compared to calves sired by bulls with positive EBVs for gestation length. Although the difference between the EBVs was small they suggest that calves sired by bull C would be born slightly earlier.

The actual gestation lengths of the two groups of calves is presented in table 1. On average calves sired by bull C were born three days earlier, reflecting the difference in the EBV values.

Table 1 – Gestation Length (days)

Calves sired by:	Gestation length EBV (days)	Number of calves	Actual gestation (days)
Bull C	- 1.1	19	283.6
Bull D	-0.8	25	286.4

The birth weights of the calves are presented in table 2 and again reflect the difference in birth weight EBVs of the two bulls, with bull D having the higher EBV and producing both heavier bull and heifer calves.

Table 2 – Calf Birth Weights (kg)

Calves sired by:	Birth weight EBV (kg)	Actual birthweights
		Bull calves	Heifer calves
Bull C	+ 1.2	42.8	40.6
Bull D	+ 2.0	48.6	43.0

The main reason for selecting the two bulls however was due to their differing EBVs for calving ease (see table 3). All calvings in the college herd are assessed in terms of their difficulty, using the standard 1 – 5 calving score.

Table 3 – Ease of Calving

Calves sired by:	Calving ease EBV	Calving score		% calves born alive
		Bull calves	Heifer calves	Bull calves	Heifer calves
Bull C	0.8	1.00	1.00	100	100
Bull D	- 6.3	1.08	1.00	92	100

Calving score 1 = unassisted etc etc.

No calving difficulties were encountered with all 19 calves sired by bull C being born unassisted and only one of the 25 calves sired by bull D needing slight assistance. However one heifer calf (birth weight 42 kg) sired by bull D died at birth, the cow apparently having calved normally but having failed to clean the calf quickly enough so that it was found suffocated.

In general calving this spring has reconfirmed last years findings regarding the usefulness of EBVs associated with ease of calving in terms of selecting Charolais bulls to eliminate calving difficulties.

Combined Results for Four Charolais Bulls

The performance of calves sired by the four Charolais bulls used so far in the programme are shown in the following three tables compared with the EBVs for each bull. For calf birth weight (table 5) and ease of calving (table 6) ranking the bulls in terms of their EBVs is exactly reflected in the performance of their calves. The relationship for gestation length (table 4) is also similar apart from one bull with an EBV for gestation length of – 1.5 days which produced similar gestation lengths to the bull with an EBV of + 1.8 days! However it is possible that the reason for this discrepancy is that only eight calves were sired by this bull. With a range of at least 14 days in gestation length for calves sired by the same bull it is perhaps not surprising that average gestation lengths for only eight progeny could well be misleading.

Table 4 – Comparison of Four Charolais Bulls Gestation Length (days)

	EBV of sire	Actual gestation length (days)
Long	+ 1.8	288
	- 0.8	286
	- 1.1	284
Short	- 1.5	288

Table 5 – Comparison of Four Charolais Bulls Birth Weight (kg)

	EBV of sire (kg)	Calf birth weights (kg)
Heavy	+ 3.5	53
	+ 2.0	46
	+ 1.9	45
Light	+ 1.2	42

Table 6 – Comparison of Four Charolais Bulls Ease of Calving

EBV of sire	Calving score	% calves born alive
- 9.4	1.9	92
- 6.3	1.04	94
- 5.3	1.0	100
+ 0.8	1.0	100

The results from these four bulls suggest that for mature spring calving suckler cows, selecting Charolais bulls with EBVs for ease of calving of – 5 or better (ie + figures) will result in little or no calving difficulties.

Interestingly ranking these four Charolais bulls in terms of their EBV for ease of calving was the same as their ranking for Calving Value, suggesting that Calving Values better than + 2C would result in minimum calving difficulties.

Table 7 – Comparison of Ease of Calving and Calving Value

Ease of calving EBV	Calving value
- 9.4	- 2C
- 6.3	+ 1C
- 5.3	+ 2C
0.8	+ 3C

However it is important to remember that calving value measures the improved financial returns by reducing the overall costs associated with a difficult calving and longer gestation lengths, both of which have an effect on the subsequent fertility of the cow. Examples would be the higher risk of barren cows following severe calving difficulties, the delay of cows getting back in calf following a long gestation period etc. Calving Value is not therefore a direct measure of how easily a bull’s calves will be born.

CLAIMING HEIFERS FOR SCP

The new SCP rules allow producers to claim eligible heifers, up to a maximum of 20% of their total claim. To be eligible heifers must be over 8 months old on the date of claim or replacement and must be a beef breed or cross. They are not required to be in-calf or indeed be destined to calve into the herd.

Farmers who claim heifers or bring them in as replacements should take great care not to breach the 20% limit at any time during their retention period. For example a claim comprising 80 cows and 20 heifers would be right at the limit. Under this scenario, if a cow were to die she would have to be replaced by another cow (which has produced a calf). Replacing her with a heifer, either in-calf or not would take the total heifers to 21 i.e. over 20% of the claim. Under the new rules, an in-calf heifer is no different to any other eligible heifer.

Producers should also note that Suckler Cow Premium is paid on "cows and heifers forming part of a regular breeding herd used for rearing calves for meat". Strictly speaking, any heifers claimed or brought in as replacements should therefore be recorded in the herd register rather than as young stock. For many this would mean a temporary transfer from one "record book" to another.

The new requirement to notify SERAD, in writing, of herd replacements within 10 working days should also be noted.

THE PAYBACK PERIOD ON PURCHASING ADDITIONAL

SUCKLER COW QUOTA

There appears to be reasonable supplies of suckler cow quota on the market. Some producers are considering purchasing additional quota to either replace the quota taken off them earlier this year or to make additional claims on young heifers. The following table shows the "payback period" at a range of purchase prices for producers eligible for SCP, or with one of the two extensification payments. An interest of 8.5% p.a. has been made on the original purchase of the quota and any balance outstanding each year.

Assumptions

Interest rate 8.5%

	2000	2001
SCP	£109.98	£129.72
Extensification	£20.68	£20.68
Super extensification	£41.36	£41.36

Cost of quota	£220	£260	£300

Balance after year 1
SCP	-£129	-£172	-£216
Extensification	- £108	-£151	-£195
Super extensification	-£87	-£131	-£174

Balance after year 2
SCP	-£10	-£57	-£104
Extensification	*£33*	-£14	-£61
Super extensification	*£76*	*£29*	-£18

When the final payments are made for the 2001 SCP and extensification claims. Producers claiming either extensification or super extensification will already be making a profit on the purchase of their quota at around £220 per unit. Producers only able to claim SCP alone are nearly in balance. If quota costs £300 producers will have to wait a further year before the purchase will be paid off.

These simple calculations clearly demonstrate the very high return achievable from purchasing additional quota – PROVIDING ANY ADDITIONAL COWS/HEIFERS KEPT OR PURCHASED CAN BE EFFICIENTLY MANAGED WITHOUT REDUCING THE PERFORMANCE OF STOCK ALREADY ON THE UNIT.

RMcL

EXTENSIFICATION PREMIUM SCHEME

Standard Extensification Scheme applicants will be sent a declaration form in August for the three check dates covering the first half of the year. The form asks for the number of cattle on the farm on 27 February 2000, 3 April 2000, and 13 May 2000 as follows:

Cows

Males and Heifers older than 24 months

Males and Heifers between 6 and 24 months

All animals that have calved by the check dates, (even those under 24 months of age), should be included as cows. Careful checking of your livestock records will be required to accurately determine the number of animals that should be declared within the appropriate age bracket on the three check dates. The following table aims to help with the selection:


CHECK DATES:-	27 February 2000	3 April 2000	13 May 2000
Animals older than 24 months	Birthdays on or before 26 February 1998	Birthdays on or before 2 April 1998	Birthdays on or before 12 May 1998
Animals 6-24 months	Birthdays on or between 27 February 1998 and 27 August 1999	Birthdays on or between 3 April 1998 and 3 October 1999	Birthdays on or between 13 May 1998 and 13 November 1999

You will be signing a declaration that the information you put on the form is correct. Make sure that you have not missed any animals and that the animals have been entered in the appropriate age bracket. This exercise will have to be repeated in January 2001 on another similar form for the last three, as yet unknown, check dates falling between June and December 2000.

Simplified Scheme applicants will not be sent the check date form as they have already declared on their IACS that they will keep the stocking density level on their holding below 1.6 LU/hectare or below or equal to 2.0 LU/hectare throughout the calendar year. Simplified Scheme applicants may change to the other stocking density level, (up or down), during the year provided that the local SERAD office is notified in writing and provided that the applicant has not been already advised of a forthcoming on-farm inspection. If the density level chosen is exceeded on any day of the year entitlement to extensification will be lost and penalties may be applied.

Now is a good time for both Standard and Simplified scheme applicants to "forward budget" the stocking density for the remainder of the year and plan any adjustments in livestock numbers to ensure subsidies are maximised. Remember to include both cattle and the number of any Sheep Annual Premium claim in your calculation. Your local adviser would be happy to help.

LESS FAVOURED AREAS SUPPORT SCHEME

SERAD has submitted its revised proposals, to the European Commission, for the Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme (LFASS) which will replace the HLCA system of payments. These proposals have yet to be ratified but it is expected that this version of an area based system will prove acceptable.

The main thrust of the scheme will still be payments to keepers of breeding beef herds and/or sheep flocks in the LFAs. However payments to individual producers will now be based on the areas used to maintain the cows and sheep rather than on the number of animals kept.

Payment rates are to be based on SERAD’s existing land classification which divides the LFA into 6 categories which in turn will be divided into improved pasture and unimproved grazing, giving a total of 12 payment rates. The provision rates are shown below.

	Provisional rates per hectare
Land Class	Improved Pasture	Unimproved Grazing
HIE – A	£20.00	£5.00
HIE – B	£18.00	£5.00
HIE – C	£5.00	£2.00
Non-HIE – D	£20.00	£6.00
Non-HIE – E	£17.00	£6.00
Non-HIE – F	£7.00	£4.00

These payments will be topped up with awards for environmental measures, details of which have yet to emerge.

On the basis of the above figures our preliminary calculations suggest that with or without environmental top-ups, many producers would receive significantly lower payments. SERAD hope to introduce a so-called "safety net" system which will refund "losers" under the new arrangements. For 2001, 90% of any reduction in subsidy would be refunded, 80% in 2002 and 50% in 2003. While this may soften the impact of the changes for the next two years, it looks likely that for many farmers payments will be reduced.

CLAIMING SLAUGHTER PREMIUM

Remember to claim slaughter premium on all cattle – both clean cattle and cull cows and bulls etc. For this year the slaughter premium (for animals over 8 months old) is £16.92 per head.

It is also important to remember that the maximum number of claim forms which can be submitted in any year is 12 forms for clean cattle which should be sent to SERAD/MAFF and 12 forms per year for cull animals which should be sent to the Intervention Board.

Produced by The Scottish Agricultural College, Farm & Rural Business Division, Greycrook, St Boswells,

TD6 0EU

SAC receives financial support from the Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department.