Production

However, the production side of the system can be daunting.

“Finishing animals on grass is the hardest grazing management system to accomplish,” said Jeff McCutcheon, an Ohio State University Extension educator in Morrow County.

“It’s definitely not for beginners.”

McCutcheon said that many livestock producers in Morrow County and surrounding areas are part of a growing niche of Ohio farmers who see more advantages to raising grass-fed cattle than grain-fed cattle.

“Beef cows are ruminants and many feel they were made to eat forages, not grain. Many farmers who practice grass-fed beef production may also hold strong conservation values and feel that the practice is more environmentally friendly,” said McCutcheon.

“They are also catering to a growing consumer base that is demanding a product that comes from an alternative production method than the traditional commodity grain-fed system.”

Pasture grazing

However, pasture grazing, as opposed to the feedlot system, requires the meticulous management of balancing cow nutrition with proper forage production.

Beef Expo session

McCutcheon will help livestock producers work out a viable system at the Ohio Beef Expo on March 21. He will give presentations on managing animals for grass-fed beef production at 10 a.m., and developing your forage system for grass-fed beef production at 11:15 a.m.

The Ohio Beef Expo takes place March 19-21 at the Ohio Expo Center in Columbus, Ohio. For more information, log on to http://ohiobeefexpo.com.

McCutcheon said that producers must consistently increase the animal’s weight from weaning to harvest. In order to do that, they need to feed high-quality forages, which can be difficult to accomplish year-round, especially during winter and summer months.

Production systems

McCutcheon said that there are different grass-fed beef production systems available, depending on the producer’s needs.

For example, some only grow perennial cool season grasses, like bluegrass, orchard grass or clover, and supplement with hay. Others mix in annuals, such as oats, wheat, or turnips, to balance the forage chain.

McCutcheon said that grass-fed beef is a much leaner product, which many consumers like. But the lack of the marbling characteristic of grain-fed beef leaves more room for error to end up with a lower quality product if the animal is harvested too soon.

“We usually use back fat as a marker for when cattle are ready to be harvested,” said McCutcheon. “I’ve heard people describe meat from cattle harvested too early as tough and dry. That is why finishing grass-fed beef is so challenging.”

But producers who get it right can enjoy a premium for their product, said McCutcheon.

Ted Ferris, a professor in the Michigan State University Department of Animal Science, and Dan Grooms, an associate professor in the MSU College of Veterinary Medicine Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, are working with a group of researchers to identify ways that farmers can protect their farms — and animals — from the spread of infectious diseases.

One of the biggest concerns for farmers is hosting a visitor that might be bringing with them disease pathogens that could potentially be transmitted to the farm animals, and eventually between animals, or bringing a new disease onto the farm through purchased stock.

Welcome, but

Ferris and Grooms developed the “STOP Sign” campaign, a program meant to encourage dairy and beef farmers across Michigan to adopt and enforce biosecurity procedures for their traditional and non-traditional visitors, from the veterinarian or feed salesman to the city cousin and public official.

The purpose of a biosecurity program is to reduce the risk of transmitting infectious diseases, including the Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus (BVDV), cryptosporidium, salmonella and Johne’s disease.

In addition, Grooms said, people who visit farms in the United States upon return from foreign travel can potentially spread foreign animal diseases to farm animals.

An example of a foreign animal diseases is foot-and-mouth disease, which was responsible for decimating a large percentage of the cattle industry in the United Kingdom earlier this decade.

Developed protocols

Their research team provided materials, examples and instructions to 51 dairy farms and 21 beef farms across Michigan to help them develop farm gate (visitor) biosecurity protocols.

Ferris said most of the farms that received the materials had newer production facilities and/or were owned by farmers recognized among their industry peers as early adopters of the newest practices and technologies.

Farmers received suggested procedures for establishing a visitor policy and parameters for identifying a visitor parking area.

Other guidelines provided to farmers included how to set up a station for visitors to pull on plastic boots over their footwear before entering the farm, how to create and where to locate sign-in logs that document the countries that visitors may have recently visited, and where to display signs, such as a STOP sign, to limit access to livestock areas.

“Our goal is to change the way producers view visitors and help to heighten the awareness of general farm biosecurity procedures,” Ferris said. “We want to help farmers realize that visitors, even though they are a regular part of doing business, can be a potential source of disease transmission.”

Ferris said that strictly enforced biosecurity programs may eventually enhance consumer confidence about the safety of our nation’s food supply. “We all want our animals to be healthy, and we believe that the leaders of our farming communities can set a good example for other producers,” he added.

Grooms said he hopes this effort will minimize the spread of infectious diseases and reduce the risk of a foreign animal disease outbreak in the United States.

Consumers often respond to such crises by eliminating the purchase of certain food products based on fear. Producers not only lose their source of income, many times even after the animal health issue has been resolved, but they also must endure the emotional hardship of losing animals to illness, and in extreme cases, the loss of a multi-generational family business.

Follow-up

Ferris and Grooms plan to conduct follow-up interviews with each farm implementing the guidelines later this year to gauge the adoption rate of various visitor biosecurity protocols included in their “STOP Sign” project.

Comments and suggestions received through the interview process will be used to improve the program.

If the campaign proves successful, Grooms and Ferris said they would like to expand the campaign to more farms in Michigan and expand it across the country nationally to help increase awareness of biosecurity.

Farmers around the world have responded to growing demand by producing record crops recently. As a result, USDA forecasts that global ending stocks for 2009/10 (June-May) will be 196.8 million metric tons, up 60 percent from a recent low of 123.3 million metric tons in 2007/08.

Demand strong

Significantly, though, the March report calls for world wheat demand to grow again this year.

Falling wheat prices since the supply-induced shock of 2007/08 are partly responsible, but global demand is growing with population and income in developing countries.

Since 1980, in fact, wheat imports by developing countries have grown from 50 million metric tons to 125 million metric tons.

Good ol’ supply/demand

U.S. Wheat Associates Vice President of Overseas Operations Vince Peterson recently told reporters that at some point only a few years away, demand is likely to exceed production again.

“We know U.S. producers are planting less wheat on average every year,” Peterson said, “mainly because crops like corn, soybeans, and other oilseeds offer more income.”

Melvin Brees, economist at the University of Missouri Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute, said projected break-even prices for this year at $5.17 per bushel for winter wheat, $3.02 for corn, and $6.42 for soybeans.

“The trend down exists everywhere wheat is grown, not just in the United States,” Peterson said.

Unless technology can drive wheat yields up, he added, supply will fall and prices will rise again.

Export forecast

For 2009/10, USDA held its U.S. wheat export forecast steady at 825 million bushels (22.5 MMT), which included a 10 million bushel (272,800 MT) increase in hard red winter exports offset by the same decrease for white wheat.

Commercial U.S. hard red winter sales for 2009/10 are up 19 percent over 2008/09 to North Asia, up 14 percent to Sub-Saharan Africa, and significantly up in North Africa following recent sales to Morocco.

U.S. durum and soft white wheat sales this marketing year are also outpacing 2008/09.

USDA forecasts total U.S. wheat exports to end 2009/10 18.5 percent lower than in 2008/09, reflecting greater exportable world supplies.

Not so different

Actually, many similarities exist, at least conceptually. Many fish farmers have found vacated swine or poultry barns useful for aquaculture, because of the indoor space, running water and utilities.

Shawn McWhorter, aquaculture specialist with Ohio State University, said existing structures offer opportunity, but producers who become serious about the business may find themselves limited by such buildings, and may be better off making the investment of an aquaculture-only facility.

Producers “don’t want the building dictating what the operation can do,” he said.

Prime location

With so much clay in Ohio, constructing ponds may work best for some. During the Ohio Grain Farmers Symposium, OSU aquaculture specialist Laura Tiu reported the cost of constructing a pond to be about $15,000 an acre. The most common size pond used is one-half, to 1 acre.

About 3,000-5,000 pounds of fish can be raised in a one-acre pond. For natural bodies of water, cages can be inserted to control movement and separation of fish, but caging tends to develop more disease and slower growth, Tiu reported.

Some of the higher-tech ways to house fish include recirculating aquaculture systems (man-made tank facilities) and raceways (system of parallel tanks).

Recirculating systems incorporate the most technology and usually require the largest capital investment.

Ohio’s state veterinarian Tony Forshey, who represents the Ohio Department of Agriculture in aquaculture development, said raising fish can be more profitable than crop farming, per acre, but like crops, it has to be well managed.

Study up

McWhorter, who directs Ohio State University’s Bowling Green Aquaculture Satellite Center, said the first thing for a new producer to do is read and ask questions.

“Do a year’s homework before you even spend a dollar,” he said.

Then, when ready to invest, he advises producers to start at the smallest size necessary, and increase slowly.

He suggests forming friendships with “with people who don’t have anything to sell,” because plenty of help is available, if a producer agrees to purchase a product or particular brand.

Plan carefully

McWhorter and Forshey both said while there’s plenty of opportunity in fish, there’s also opportunity to fail, if decisions are misguided and uninformed.

However, one thing producers can anticipate is a strong demand, for at least the next several years. With a $9 billion national deficit in aquaculture and a rapidly growing population, Forshey said he doesn’t see Ohio’s production catching up with demand for at least another 10 years.

Gary Stansberry, aquaculture coordinator for Ohio Department of Agriculture, said a study being conducted with OSU’s Piketon Center will help determine the barriers to aquaculture expansion in Ohio. Stansberry visits with fish farmers across the state, listening to problems and working to develop solutions.

As he sees it, aquaculture may be a way of helping large farms diversify, giving them more chance to succeed when traditional farm markets become volatile.

“Stay with what you’re doing (traditional farming), but also look at the fish,” he advises.

But a growing industry in the state promises to produce as many or more fish than can be caught, and there’s nothing fishy about what local experts say it could bring to Ohio’s economy and agribusinesses.

A rising industry

Aquaculture — the rearing of aquatic organisms such as fish, mollusks, crustaceans, reptiles and plants — has grown over the past 40 years by nearly 9 percent each year.

Demand is so great, and natural fish supplies limited, that aquaculture now accounts for 50 percent of marketed fish. Next to oil, seafood represents the nation’s second highest deficit, at $9 billion.

And with world population increasing, so, too, is the demand for aquaculture and fish protein. Globally, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization projects fish consumption to rise from 97.2 million metric tons this year, to nearly 115 million by 2025.

Doing research

In Bowling Green, Ohio, Shawn McWhorter is studying new kinds of baitfish and developing the best ways they can be produced. An aquaculture specialist for Ohio State University, he operates the university’s Bowling Green Aquaculture Satellite Center.

Tank upon plastic tank is filled with fish in different stages of development. Currently, he’s working with the baitfish “spotfin shiner,” a hardy choice that withstands transportation and produces two-thirds of its body weight a year in eggs, a lot for an animal specie.

Spotfins are popular among fisherman, but are in too short a supply to be collected from natural bodies of water.

McWhorter is not in it for profit; instead, he’s trying to develop new methods that can be shared with other producers.
Sharing the word. “We try to hand off the technology that we discover and put it into terms that the producer can use,” he said.

Aquaculture is still in the “log-cabin era” as an industry, but with lots of frontier to claim, he said.
On a recent visit to the Bowling Green facility, Tony Forshey, state veterinarian with Ohio Department of Agriculture, said Ohio fish is “at the infantile stage, but with huge potential.”

The industry will know more following a feasibility study being conducted at OSU’s Piketon Center, which will help determine a strategic plan for the state, and identify any necessary infrastructure.

Becoming a leader

Already, Ohio has more than 200 fish farms. Sales in 2007 were reported at $6.6 million, up from $3.18 million in 2005. But those numbers still aren’t good enough for a state that has so many resources — clay soils, good groundwater and close proximity to lakes and population centers.

“Our goal is to be No. 1 in the country in production,” Forshey said.

It’s unclear just yet, what kind of production will be needed to make Ohio the nation’s forefront in fish. But the state is already first in bluegill production, and fourth in perch.

“We’re already on our way, we just got to keep rolling,” Forshey said.

Ohio will need dependable infrastructure for marketing fish, he said, and the ability to produce a “consistent, constant product” for retailers.

Knows his fish

Walking around the various tanks of fish, McWhorter discusses them like they are part of his family. He’s been billed “the fish guy” by some of his colleagues and he feeds and monitors fish daily.

He spends hours reading fish books several inches thick, learning of new tips for producers. He’s even invented a few devices along the way, one being used for the fish to lay their tiny eggs.

With a microscope attached to a computer monitor, he shows what 10,000 fish eggs look like, in a sample no bigger than a dime. It’s a small sample of an industry that could grow to be very big.

McWhorter is one of several researchers working to develop alternative fish feeds, including soybean feeds that would provide more market for Ohio and U.S. soybean growers.

Economic gain

With all the work being done, Ohioans have the opportunity to “close the loop” on the fish industry, building what he calls a “pyramid of economic impact.”

That “pyramid” includes increased soybean demand, increases in fish production and sales, as well as fish-related equipment and education.

Forshey said aquaculture is appropriately included in the state’s definition of agriculture, and fish should be considered a potentially profitable commodity.

Growers can raise fish at many levels, he said, but if the industry is to take flight, it must be considered a way of farming.

“There’s always going to be a place for that niche market deal, but if we really want (aquaculture) to move forward, then we’ve got to make it look like traditional agriculture for the existing agribusinesses,” he said.

ODA’s responsibility, he said, is to make people see “this is real agriculture.”

(To see the sidebar to this story, which examines the practicality of fish farming, read Does fish farming make sense for you. Next week’s edition will feature two stories about fish entrepreneurs in in northcentral Ohio.)

That’s according to a newly published Ohio State University study, Differences in Listeria monocytogenes Contamination of Rural Ohio Residences With and Without Livestock.

Farms sampled. For the study, researchers made four visits each to 52 rural households; half of the households were operating a dairy, sheep or beef cattle farm.

During the visits, researchers collected samples and tested them for Listeria monocytogenes, a food-borne disease pathogen prevalent throughout nature.

Although L. monocytogenes is widespread, it rarely causes illness — but when it does, the illness can be severe. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration estimates that there are only about 1,600 cases of listeriosis, the disease caused by L. monocytogenes, in the U.S. per year, but about one-quarter of those cases are fatal.

Most at risk are fetuses of pregnant women, newborns, as well as immuno-compromised individuals and the elderly.

If one, probably more

“Although we focused on looking for Listeria, we actually were using it as a marker for any type of pathogen,” said Jeffrey LeJeune, associate professor in the Food Animal Health Research Program of Ohio State’s Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.

“We know that Listeria survives really well in the environment, but if it’s in the home, that’s an indication that there could be other pathogens getting into the home, too.”

Listeriosis is most often linked with contaminated lunch meat, hot dogs and especially milk and dairy products that are unpasteurized.

“One of our goals was to see if we could shed light on how Listeria enters homes, and if ruminant-farm households were at greater risk for contamination,” said LeJeune, who is also a food safety specialist with Ohio State University Extension.

For this study, researchers took samples of food items most likely to be contaminated with L. monocytogenes, including dairy products, leftovers, and ready-to-eat deli products. If one of those items was unavailable, they substituted an item of fresh produce for sampling.

Check your sink

They also collected samples from various surfaces throughout the homes, including refrigerators, kitchen sinks, washing machines, and the bottoms of shoes or boots.

In farm households, they also took samples of work gloves; in non-farm households, they took samples from kitchen counters.

In addition, the researchers collected samples of both human and farm-animal feces, since the organism can be found in the stools of infected animals and people.

In all, 1,779 samples were collected throughout the study.

What they found

Forty-seven of these samples were positive for L. monocytogenes: 20 samples from shoes; nine from animal fecal samples; seven from food items; six from work gloves; three from kitchen sinks; and two from washing machines.

Results showed that L. monocytogenes was much more likely to be isolated from farm households than non-farm rural homes. In fact, the chance of detecting L. monocytogenes at farm households was more than twice as great (54 percent chance) than at non-farm rural households (23 percent chance), primarily because of the fecal samples taken from farm animals.

Even more telling was when farm-animal samples and food samples (which may have been contaminated at the store or otherwise outside of the household) were excluded from analysis: Then, the odds of detecting L. monocytogenes in the home were 5.6 times higher at farm households than at non-farm rural homes.

Yuck!

In one farm household, a no-bake cookie tested positively for Listeria of the same molecular fingerprint as was found in one of the farm animals, pointing a finger directly at the animals on the farm as the source of contamination.

“That was one of our most important findings,” said co-investigator Lydia Medeiros, food safety researcher with OARDC and Ohio State University Extension.

“To show an actual DNA link between Listeria in the farm animals to Listeria found in food in the house — that’s significant. It’s like finding a needle in a haystack.”

Take-home message

Medeiros said the study’s findings carry a strong message for livestock farmers.

“Farmers working with animals, particularly dairy cattle, need to take precautions not to carry contamination into the household,” she said. “Clothing and shoes worn outside need to stay outside.

“And, since we found contamination on two washing machines, it may be a good idea to have a separate laundry area just for work clothes.”

Hygiene critical

LeJeune added that, although Listeria showed up more in farm households than non-farm homes, it did appear in both.

“To me, that means that hygiene is critical for everyone,” LeJeune said. “Anyone can bring these pathogens into the home — on the bottoms of their shoes, for example. Then the children might drop their backpacks on the floor, and later put the backpacks on a kitchen counter or kitchen table, where they are also eating lunch. That’s just a bad combination.”

With all of this consumer interest — what can farmers do to sell locally grown products to meet these needs? They can start a new crop on the farm — whether it’s meat goats, greenhouse plants, berries or vegetables.

OSU Extension in Washington County is sponsoring the 2010 Mid-Ohio Valley Agriculture Opportunities Conference from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. March 27 at Washington State Community College in Marietta.

The keynote presentation will feature Joe Kovach, who set out to gross $10 per row foot on his research plots in Wooster, Ohio. This is equal to a robust $90,000 per acre, in his innovative farm plots of mixed fruits and vegetables.

So far, based on the crops that he has in production, the Ohio State University scientist has achieved exactly that.

An ecological pest management expert, Kovach is nearly complete with his six-year study of four types of polyculture modules plots with a mix of such high-value crops as snap peas, green beans, blueberries, raspberries, strawberries, tomatoes and edamame, or edible soybeans.

His presentation will be, “How to gross $90,000 per acre on your farm.”

After the main session — participants can find many sessions which will help them find their niche in the new agricultural economy, and can choose from presentations on livestock, fruit, vegetables, plants, grants, marketing and management.

There will an afternoon general session, “The Natural Greenhouse: Growing plants and food for profit,” by Gini Coover, of Shade, Ohio.

Coover has written her own book about her experiences with growing and marketing locally grown foods.

Registration is $30 and includes lunch along with a conference proceedings with details from all presentations from the entire conference.

A registration form can be found at: http://washington.osu.edu under “Ag Opportunities Conference” or call the Extension office at 740-376-7431.

Scarlet-Maple Farm Kennel in Lancaster County, owned by Daniel P. Esh; the adjoining Twin Maple Farm Kennel in Lancaster County, owned by John E. Esh; Burkholder Farm Kennel in Berks County, owned by Aaron Burkholder; CC Pets, formerly Puppy Love, Kennel in Lancaster County, owned by Joyce Stoltzfus; and Almost Heaven Kennel in Lehigh County, owned by Derbe “Skip” Eckhart, have all been closed under the Dog Law’s provisions.

The dog law, signed in October 2008 by Gov. Ed Rendell, gave the bureau enforcement power to make sure kennels that do not meet the standards of the law can no longer operate in Pennsylvania, according to Pa.’s Special Deputy Secretary for Dog Law Enforcement Jessie L. Smith.

Court ruling. The Commonwealth Court recently issued a ruling upholding the Department of Agriculture’s decision to refuse Aaron Burkholder’s 2009 application for a commercial kennel license (link opens .pdf of court ruling).

The license was revoked in 2008 and refused in 2009 because the bureau found numerous violations of the dog law over multiple inspections.

Later, the department provided information from inspection reports to the Humane Society of Berks County, leading to Burkholder’s animal cruelty conviction.

Under the new law, a kennel license cannot be issued to someone convicted of animal cruelty.

Other revocations. Daniel P. Esh’s commercial kennel license was revoked in 2008 because of poor kennel conditions. During multiple inspections in 2007 and 2008, dog wardens found moldy food, poor maintenance, excessive feces, rodents and inadequate cage sizes for the dogs, among other violations.

Because of those violations, the bureau refused to grant Esh a commercial kennel license in 2009. This decision was appealed to Commonwealth Court, but the appeal was eventually withdrawn.

A recent closing inspection of Daniel Esh’s kennel found that he has 11 dogs. Anyone who has 25 or fewer dogs does not need a commercial kennel license.

John E. Esh was cited for kennel violations in 2007 and, in January 2008, he pled guilty to five summary offenses. A judged sentenced him to the maximum fine of $300 on each count, totaling $1,500.

John E. Esh filed an application to close his commercial kennels with the bureau in late 2009. A recent inspection revealed he has fewer than 25 dogs and his commercial kennel has closed.

CC Pets Kennel. Joyce Stoltzfus’ CC Pets Kennel was found by Commonwealth Court in April 2009 to be in violation of a 2005 consent agreement with the state attorney general’s office. Because of the violation, the court ordered CC Pets to cease operation for six months.

The new dog law authorizes the bureau to revoke a kennel’s license if they are ordered to stop operating a kennel, owning or selling dogs or both. Her license was revoked by the bureau in September 2009, and after initially appealing the revocation, Joyce Stoltzfus withdrew her appeal and filed a closing application in November 2009.

A recent closing inspection found 13 dogs on the premises.

Removed 200 dogs. In June 2009, the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement undertook its largest enforcement action to date when it removed more than 200 dogs and shut down Eckhart’s Almost Heaven Kennel in Lehigh County.

The bureau refused Eckhart’s 2009 kennel license application. When he failed to appeal to Commonwealth Court within the necessary time period, the bureau, working with the Humane Society of the United States, removed 216 dogs from the kennel.

Eckhart was also fined more than $169,000 by the Department of Agriculture for violating the Dog Law. His license was initially revoked in October 2008 after an inspection showed serious violations of the law.

Cruelty charges from the inspection filed by Humane Society Police Officers are still pending.

Learn more. For more information about the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement or to view kennel inspection reports, visit www.agriculture.state.pa.us, click on “Bureaus, Commissions & Councils,” and select “Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement.”