Sheep Notes: Spring 2011
ISSN 1836-4756
Sheep notes is produced with financial support from the Sheep and Goat Compensation Advisory Committee.
Inside this issue
|
|
Editorial
Welcome to the Spring 2011 edition of Sheep Notes which contains articles of interest to all sheep producers. This edition is being prepared at the time when DPI is assisting control the spread of a disease in pigeons: this disease outbreak reinforces the message that all industries, including the sheep industry, need good bisosecurity measures in place. This edition has plenty of articles showing how you can improve your property’s biosecurity; we trust you find it a useful read.
Jane Court and Robert Suter
The 5 Ts of ram preparation
Dr Robert Suter, Disease Surveillance Project Leader – Sheep, DPI Attwood
“It takes two to tango” – a well known adage.
“It only takes one sperm to fertilise an egg” – a scientific (biological) fact. Prior to joining your ewes it is important to remember that it takes two to tango, so don’t forget to have both your rams and your ewes in optimal condition. There are five key areas of the ram’s physique that need to be checked prior to mating – the five Ts: testicles, toes, torso, teeth and tossle.
Ideally this check is done six weeks or more before mating commences, which allows you time to source replacement rams for any deemed as culls, or to improve those assessed as marginal. The importance of that time period will become apparent later in the article.
When examining rams prior to mating I look at these five parts of his anatomy –
Testicles: These are the most important part of ram, and why you bought him. Testicles produce sperm, so pass on the genetics that persuaded you to buy the ram. I look for two evenly sized, symmetrical, taut, toned testicles that move freely within the scrotal sac. Ideally the testicles should feel like a toned, flexed bicep muscle – taut and quite springy. If they are soft and flabby, this could suggest testicular degeneration.
The combined size of the scrotum should be more than 30cm in diameter, i.e. each testicle bigger than a beer can (another biological fact: testicular size is proportional to sperm production, so bigger testicles produce more sperm). They should also be free of unusual lumps and bumps that could suggest an epididymitis – the commonest of which is caused by brucellosis.
 |
Toes: “These feet were made for walking” (with apologies to Nancy Sinatra). Make sure our rams are not lame. Most lameness in sheep originates in the feet which means we need to check the toes of rams. We expect rams to cover long distances in the joining paddock, so make sure their toes are in good order – trim any that are overgrown. Beware of old foot abscesses – they suggest the ram could have testicular degeneration.
Torso: Check the ram all over, particularly for body condition score (ideally just over 3.0) and for signs of flystrike. As the owner, check the ram to see if he still meets your genetic ideal: after all, he will be producing ewe lambs that can be in your flock for the next five years, and their daughters will still be carrying his influence in another 10! Does he meet your current ideal for body size, body wrinkle or other traits?
Teeth: It is surprising how many broken-mouthed rams are found during ram assessment, particularly in the first year of doing these on a farm. Will their inability to eat properly affect their welfare and/or their ability to join ewes? Rams are aged into one-year age brackets by counting incisor teeth: I am looking for an even spread of age groups in the ram flock; that shows it is being turned over evenly and regularly, and you are capturing the genetic gains available in the sheep industry.
Tossle: This is a quaint term I learnt from a Kiwi colleague, which refers to another part of a ram’s anatomy – the penis and preputial sheath. Check to ensure that the penis is freely moveable in the sheath and that there is no sign of infection within the sheath (known as ‘pizzle rot’ or balanoposthitis).
Having checked the rams all over, now for some detail:
Testicular degeneration can be associated with heavy grain feeding, as can sometimes occur with show or sale preparation. It can also be caused by diseases that produce fever, which overheats the testicles (sperm are sensitive to heat, which is why the scrotum hangs down, away from the body). The most common such diseases are flystrike and foot abscess. Poor quality nutrition or diseases that reduce food intake (such as worms) can also cause testicular degeneration.
On its own, testicular degeneration isn’t necessary the death knell for a ram, because most rams can recover from the condition with time and good nutrition. Time is important: it takes about six weeks for sperm to mature in the epididymis. By performing the pre-mating assessment of rams more than six weeks in advance allows time for good feed to improve many of rams detected with soft, flabby testicles (degenerate ones).
High-protein supplements, particularly those with lots of sulphur amino acids (such as lupins), are ideal for helping rams overcome testicular degeneration. This becomes particularly important for late summer–autumn matings, when rams have been on dry pasture. Feeding these protein supplements at nearly half maintenance will rapidly produce larger, better toned and more resilient testicles, in a ram with a good body condition score to assist him to cope with the joining period. One recommended supplementary feeding rate is 500gm lupins per head per day for six to eight weeks prior to mating during times of dry paddock feed.
I urge everyone trying to maximise the reproductive potential of their flocks to assess their rams well before joining, ensuring you have rams that are ready to tango the day they are put with their ewes, and are still dancing (if needs be) as they are about to be removed.
Need a dipping contractor?
Jane Court, Sheep and Wool Officer, DPI Seymour
The incidence of lice in sheep flocks is reportedly on the rise, and many producers are interested in using dipping contractors owing to concerns regarding resistance to some backliners, out of service dips and labour requirements. Because some of the dipping contractors operating in Victoria cover a fair bit of country, it is often reported that by the time a producer hears that one has been in the area and rings to find out their availability, the contractor has headed back home.
Bestwool Bestlamb has instigated a program to assist both producers and contractors access services more easily, when needed. To do this, they have developed a ‘live’ map on the website (Fig 1), which dipping contractors are being asked to update with where and when they will be operating. Producers can then look at the website to see who might be operating in their area at a time when they are looking to dip. The site has a summary of relevant details on available contractors (such as dip type and capacity), availability for hire and relevant questions that should be considered when contacting a contractor (such as labour requirements, insurance cover and regulations regarding the use of organophosphates). For further details go to: http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/beef-and-sheep/tools/dipping-calendar.
 |
|
Fig 1. Dipping contractor map as of 23 Aug 2011 from http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/beef-and-sheep/tools/dippingcalendar |
This site is in development and needs to be used and tested, but by the time this edition of Sheep Notes hits your mail box, it will be ready to use. Bestwool Bestlamb would be interested in any feedback to improve this, so if you have any comments please ring Jane Court on (03) 5735 4351.
Bestwool Bestlamb is Victoria’s sheep producer network, which is supported by DPI Victoria and AWI. If you are interested in being part of this network – either by forming a local group or being an Associate member – contact Lyndon Kubeil on (03) 5761 1649 or visit the website http://bestwoolbestlamb.com/pages/about/ for more details.
New low cost electronic tag –a boost for sheep identification
Dr Tony Britt, Director Animal Biosecurity and Welfare – DPI Bendigo
 |
|
Fig 2. Shearwell Australia ASET 1-piece electronic sheep NLIS tag in the 2011 birth year colour |
The use of electronic identification within Victoria’s sheep industry has taken a major step forward with the introduction of a new innovative electronic NLIS (Sheep) tag (Fig 2).
DPI has recently signed a contract with Shearwell Australia (a subsidiary of UKbased Shearwell Data Ltd) enabling its one piece ASET tag to be sold in Victoria for $0.90 each. Producers will find the attractively priced tag easier and quicker to apply than conventional two-piece electronic tags. In another innovation, the Shearwell ASET tags are available in ‘year of birth’ colours. The national year of birth colours for 2011 and 2012 lambs are light green and purple, respectively.
The use of electronic NLIS (Sheep) tags is voluntary, but many wool growers and prime lamb producers are recognising the benefits of electronic identification for flock management purposes (see article on page 13). The Shearwell ASET tag has been successfully trialled in a national trial overseen by Meat and Livestock Australia, and tested on Victorian farms and at saleyards and abattoirs for electronic readability. The ASET tag is widely used in Europe, where the electronic tagging of sheep is mandatory in most countries.
The current NLIS (Sheep and Goats) system, which is based on visually readable tags and paper records, has significant limitations. With electronic NLIS (Sheep) tags, the electronic number can be read accurately in a fraction of a second, even when a tag is covered in dirt.
DPI encourages the voluntary use of electronic NLIS (Sheep) tags for commercial flock management purposes. This will establish a sound foundation for the wider adoption of electronic identification for both commercial and biosecurity purposes in the future.
Producers are able to purchase the Shearwell ASET tag by visiting the DPI website at www.dpi.vic.gov.au and clicking on the Tags On-line page.
Victorian producers are still able to purchase the NLIS accredited Allflex and Leader Products two-piece sheep tags.
For further information on the use of electronic NLIS (Sheep) tags, please call DPI’s NLIS Helpline on 1800 678 779 during office hours.
OJD: Negative abattoir reporting
Alison Lee, Principal Veterinary Officer, DPI Bendigo
The Assurance Based Credits (ABC) Scheme was developed in 2004 to assist in the control of ovine Johne’s disease (OJD) in Australia. Underpinning the ABC scheme is abattoir surveillance, vaccination against OJD and the ABC score.
Abattoir surveillance involves inspectors at various abattoirs throughout Australia examining sheep offal for gross lesions that are consistent with those found if sheep are infected with OJD. If lesions are detected samples are taken for laboratory examination and, if positive, the owner of the sheep is notified by DPI. DPI can also provide owners with advice about OJD control, including information about vaccination against OJD.
The Victorian Sheep and Goat Compensation Advisory Committee recently approved funding for routine reporting of negative OJD abattoir surveillance results to Victorian sheep producers. It may be possible for producers to use this information to increase their flock’s ABC score, which could increase the marketability of non-slaughter sheep and assist achieve interstate entry requirements.
If you receive a negative OJD abattoir report, an information sheet will accompany the report to explain how you can claim credits towards your ABC score. You may be eligible to claim points for either:
(1) Abattoir 150 – One ABC credit point can be claimed if at least 150 sheep over two years of age have been submitted to an abattoir in the past 12 months in one or more lots, and have been examined and all found negative for OJD. The sheep must have been on the property for at least two years. OR
(2) Abattoir 500 status – Two ABC score credit points can be claimed if at least 500 sheep over two years of age have been submitted to an abattoir in the past 24 months, in one or more lots, and have been examined and all found negative for OJD. The sheep must have been on the property for at least two years.
Please note, however, that the absence of OJD lesions in one or more abattoir consignments does not necessarily mean your flock is not infected with OJD. Infected sheep may not show any signs of OJD for a considerable time but, as the disease progresses, they will lose condition and will ultimately die. Any suspicion of OJD in your flock should be investigated by your veterinary practitioner. You should also maintain good biosecurity measures to assist prevent the introduction of OJD into your flock.
Further information about OJD and claiming credits towards your ABC score can be obtained by visiting either www.ojd.com.au or www.dpi.vic.gov.au/farming/ojd, or by contacting your veterinary practitioner or animal health staff at your local DPI office.
“Hot Potatoes” – Land Use
Planning and Farm Rates Robyn Bell, AgFutures, DPI Benalla
 |
Bring up the topics of local planning or farm rates and everyone has a story or an issue, and it is usually not a good one. The AgFutures project aims to assist farmers and farming communities make sense of changes impacting on agriculture. So when a Seymour producer group identified these topics as a big issue which could impact on the future of farming, the AgFutures team took up the challenge.
One of the key ingredients for running a successful forum on a topic that can be emotive and potentially divisive is to have a good facilitator. They need to understand the issues, be able to relate to the audience(s), direct the program and clarify the outcomes. For this forum, the expected outcomes were not to resolve the issues (deemed unrealistic), but to open communication channels by providing a ‘non-threatening’ forum where farmers and relevant shire and government representatives could hear all perspectives and provide guidance on how to resolve problems.
A planner was contracted to liaise with the selected shires and to review their planning schemes because five shires were identified as impacting on group members. Key speakers were identified from outside organisations, namely:
- local producers to provide case study presentations of the issues affecting their business
- DPI Farm Business group spoke on the costs of farming (including terms of trade, scale, profitability, future viability, etc.), and
- the Department of Planning and Community Development to discuss state land use policy and planning , and
- the Municipal Association of Victoria to provide information on rating strategies.
To ensure a non-threatening atmosphere, farmers provided case study stories to represent the issues at hand and these were circulated to all organisations before the day. Tony Berrisford, (DPI farm economist) gave an outline of the business costs of farming using the results from the NE Livestock Farm Monitor Project, which was ‘new’ to many of the government participants. Shires and local government representatives outlined strategic plans and their visions for agriculture in the region. To address farm rates, a representative from the Municipal Association outlined the reasoning for, and calculation of, rates. The differences in rates between shires reflect the financial capacity of a shire, the rateable base and its efforts to raise revenue to meet its obligations.
Panel discussions provided a good means of presenting different perspectives efficiently, without too many keynote speakers. Further discussion on specific issues (as chosen by participants) was done in smaller groups, with representation of farmers and planners, allowing further debate and reflection.
The planning, format and running of this workshop was well received and it achieved its objectives by tackling some tricky issues – labelled as ‘hot potatoes’ by facilitator John Mulvaney. Although no one went home with cheaper rates, some farmers did go with better contacts for resolving planning issues, and everyone had a far better understanding (and perhaps better empathy) of the issues faced by all sides, with many farmers feeling more confident about getting involved in local planning scheme and rating strategy reviews.
For further information on AgFutures, contact Sherin Halliday, DPI Echuca (03) 54820453
Avoiding chemical residues in wool
Dr George Downing, Principal Veterinary Officer, DPI Epsom
 |
The recent wet summer caused severe flystrike in many sheep flocks, often requiring one or more treatments with longacting preventative insecticides on several occasions.
Some flocks also had lice infestations that needed additional long-wool treatments to control.
Given the increased use of insecticides, producers need to be aware of potential chemical residue risks when handling and marketing wool. Meat withholding periods (WHPs) should also be taken into consideration, because some chemicals have very long export slaughter intervals (ESIs).
Wool re-handling periods and harvesting intervals are particularly important. The re-handling period is the time after treatment when wool/sheep can be safely handled without the need for protective clothing. The wool harvesting interval is the period between treatment and when wool can be harvested to satisfy Australian environmental requirements.
Generally speaking, the longer a chemical is expected to work on sheep, the longer the period before the chemical residues are at a level that is acceptable for handling, shearing or selling. Most chemicals used on sheep with long wool have a default 2‑month wool harvesting interval on the chemical product label. However, in reality, this timeframe may vary (e.g. Ivermectin® – 42 days and Dicyclanil® – 90 days).
In addition to meeting standard wool re-handling and harvesting intervals, producers may wish to market wool that meets the EU market requirements. One aspect of this is producing wool with low chemical residues that meets the European Eco-label standard. This standard is quite high and requires little or no use of chemicals to control lice and flies in sheep. Guidelines for meeting this standard should be available from your wool broker. The AWI-funded pesticide residue survey of sale lots in Australia over recent years estimates that 40% of the national clip is potentially compliant with the EU Eco-label, although only 1% of the national clip is tested to demonstrate compliance.
The chemical product label directions are very important. These should be followed exactly to avoid unacceptable residues, and wool re-handling intervals, wool harvest intervals, the ESI and all relevant WHPs observed.
Producers are legally required to maintain records when treating livestock with veterinary chemicals that have WHPs or that are Prescription Animal Remedy products. Accurate records are a useful reference when completing National Wool Declarations, National Vendor Declarations and Sheep Health Statements that require producers selling wool or sheep to disclose chemical treatment details. Veterinary chemical record keeping templates are available from the DPI website: www.dpi.vic.gov.au/chemicalstandards
Flystrike control products available in Australia (August 2011)
Compiled by Noel Campbell, former Veterinary Parasitologist – DPI Attwood
| Time of application | Application method |
Chemical group |
Example products |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off-shears | Spray-on | Fly IGR1 | Clik |
| Fly IGR + Lice IGR |
Magik, Clik plus | ||
| Short wool (up to 6 weeks wool) |
Spray-on | Fly IGR | Clik |
| Dip | Fly IGR | Vetrazin, Venus, Virbazine, Cyromazine, Cyro-Fly, Cy-guard, Cyrazin, Cyromazine 500, Lucifly, Proguard, KFM, Clout |
|
| Long wool (6 weeks to 9 months wool) |
Spray-on | Spray-on | Clik |
| Jet3 | Fly IGR | Vetrazin SO2, Venus SO, Virbazine SO, Cyromazine SO, Cy-guard SO, Cyrazin SO, Lucifly SO, Proguard SO, KFM SO, Clout SO, Csyro SO |
|
| Spray-on | Synthetic Pyrethroid |
Vanquish | |
| Long wool (6 weeks to 10½ months wool) |
Hand jet | Macrocyclic Lactone |
Blowfly and Lice Jetting Fluid, Paramax Multi-Purpose Concentrate, Zinjet |
| Long wool (6 weeks to 12 months wool) |
Jet | Spinosyn | Extinosad |
1 IGR = Insect growth regulator 2 SO = Spray-on 3 Hand jet or jetting race
See product labels for full claims, withholding periods and restraints. Do not apply later than the specified number of days before slaughter or harvesting wool.
Always read and follow the label instructions.
Sources: Infopest CD Nov 2010 © DPIF Queensland 2010 and APVMA August 2011
Hay Preservatives – is there a place?
Frank Mickan, Fodder and Pasture Specialist, DPI Ellinbank
With stock numbers lower than many farmers would like and another potentially good spring looming, conserving hay or silage may be being considered. Wet conditions over spring and summer last year made producing good quality fodder challenging and possibly resulted in more haystack fires than normal.
Hay preservatives are designed to reduce microbial activity and mould growth in hays with higher than ideal moisture contents. These products result in a shorter curing time if inclement weather is threatening and reduce leaf shatter and leaf loss (thus retaining the nutritive value of hay).
‘Slightly higher moisture content’ means up to about 25% moisture in small square bales. There are now several hay preservatives on the Australian market, with most being based on the buffered salts of the organic propionic acid. The buffered products are designed to overcome the issues of corrosion, pungent smell and volatility of the organic acids used previously.
There are other preservatives available that use different modes of action to achieve the same end, such as bacterial inoculants or one containing enzymes and sulphur compounds. The inoculant types (e.g. specific Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 species) claim to promote faster curing, stop plant respiration and prevent growth of mould, so reducing heating and nutrient losses. They are recommended for use in hay baled up to about 25% moisture and are safe for animals, are non-corrosive and easily handled.
Application rates are based on the fresh weight of material. Very little extra moisture is required to add substantial weight to the hay in the windrow, so you must adjust the preservative rates substantially. Most of these products are designed to be effective in hay moisture contents up to 25%, but check if this only applies to small squares and what moisture content limits are for the large square and round bales. Table 1 shows an example of recommended preservative application rates for small square and large round bales of hay baled at different moisture contents. Note the quadrupling of application rate at the higher moisture contents. This necessitates the use of spray nozzles, which can apply a fine spray at medium pressures over the entire width of the pickup over a wide range of application rates.
| Bale form | Moisture content range (%) |
Preservative rate (kg/tonne) |
|---|---|---|
| Large rectangular | 16–22 | 2.81 |
| 23–25 | 4.68 | |
| 26–39 | Do not bale | |
| Small squares, large rounds |
16–22 | 1.87 |
| 23–25 | 3.74 | |
| 26–39 | 7.48 |
Windrowed crops that have not completely cured will have a wide variation in moisture contents along their length and throughout the profile of the windrow itself. To decide on which application rate to apply, many samples from windrows across the paddock should be tested. An alternative is to test several freshly baled bales, as long as they are representative of the material in the entire paddock. Application rates should be based on the highest moisture reading, because this is the ‘danger’ material, not the average of all readings. The preservative must cover all the cured forage and the application rates adjusted for moisture content.
Read the product labels carefully. Are the recommendations based on dry matter content versus wet weight? Is the application rate based on product or active ingredient? Some products recommend higher rates for large rectangular bales than for large rounds, and higher rates for stem or sap moisture than dew moisture only.
Don’t be complacent once baling is finished and the hay is stacked: you must still keep an eye on the bale temperature for some time. For further information visit the DPI website: http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/dairy/pasturesmanagement/ hay-preservatives
 |
Sheep Farming Systems for the Future – case study
Ruth Corrigan and Kieran Ransom, Sheep and Climate Extension, DPI Bendigo
Farming systems that have withstood the droughts of the previous decade are in good shape to remain profitable in an uncertain future: a study of north central Victorian mixed farming systems using lucerne-based pastures has demonstrated their resilience to the ups and downs of drought and variable seasons. This system was shown to generate a cumulative cash flow over the last 13 years that was over $200,000 greater than that produced using an intensive cropping/annual pasture system. Lucerne pastures reduce seasonal risk because winter and spring rain failures may be followed by summer storms. Price risks are decreased by marketing three commodities: meat, wool and grains. Producers in the Wedderburn district who have been operating these farming systems since 2002 have found them to be financially resilient.
 |
|
Fig 3. Whole farm cash flow as modelled. Mixed farm successfully |
In detail the study was of a computer model farm of 1000 hectares that was subjected to two alternative management systems from 1997–98 to 2010–11 (see Table 1 for details). Pasture and animal production were simulated using the program ‘GrassGro’ and validated against local producer records. A mixed farming system of sheep on lucerne based pastures and 40% crop was compared with a system weighted to intensive cropping (80% crop) with sheep on annual pastures. The mixed farming system generated profits during good years and minimised losses during drought years. Cumulative cash flow exceeded intensive cropping by $216,541over the 13-year period. Other comparisons studied also found lucerne pastures were twice as profitable as annual pastures.
An additional part of this study used global circulation models of possible climate scenarios at a local scale in 2030, where it was found that the last 13 years have actually been similar to what the most extreme climate models predict for the 2030 period. Therefore, the drought we have experienced provides a good insight into likely future climate scenarios.
Results of this case study, undertaken for the Wedderburn district, were well received by local producers at a workshop in June. Further modelling and workshops tailored to the Serpentine district will be delivered over coming months.
The study is part of the Adaptation to Climate Change in Southern Livestock Program, supported by MLA, Dairy
Australia, AWI and the Australian Government’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry under the Australia’s Farming Future Climate Change Research Program.
 |
|
A lucerne paddock near Bendigo in March 2003 during the 2002–03 |
For more information contact Kieran Ransom at DPI Bendigo (email Kieran.Ransom@dpi.vic.gov.au), or Ruth Corrigan (email ruth.corrigan@dpi.vic.gov.au).
| Mixed farming system: sheep on lucerne and crops |
Intensive cropping plus sheep on annual pastures and stubbles |
|
|---|---|---|
| Pasture area | 60% of farm area, mainly lucerne based. | 20% of farm area, short pasture phase between crops. |
| Crop area | 40% of farm area | 80% of farm area |
| Sheep enterprise | Self-replacing Merino ewe flock, surplus Merino ewes joined to White Suffolk rams, lucerne |
Merino ewes joined to White Suffolk rams, annual pastures. Total Flock size 1400 DSEs. |
| Crop enterprise | Wheat, barley, lupins under-sown and barley intercropped |
Wheat, wheat, barley, canola |
Land Transport Standards – do they impact on me?
Dr David Champness, Principal Veterinary Officer – Livestock Management Standards, DPI Hamilton
 |
The Land Transport Standards1 are currently being adopted into Victorian legislation under theLivestock Management Act 2010 (LMS). These nationally agreed animal welfare standards and guidelines were developed under the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS) cooperatively by the livestock industries and government. They are based on the revision of the current Model Codes of Practice for Welfare for the transport of various livestock species.
What are welfare ‘Standards’ and ‘Guidelines’?
‘Standards’ are the legal requirements for livestock welfare and use the word ‘must’. The standards detail the
requirements of livestock management practices and tasks. ‘Guidelines’ are recommended practices to achieve desirable welfare outcomes. Guidelines use the word ‘should’ and are designed to complement the standards.
Land Transport Standards and Guidelines
The Land Transport Standards and Guidelines document has two sections: Part A contains general standards and guidelines that are applicable to all livestock species, while Part B contains animal species specific standards and guidelines
Part A: General standards and guidelines for the transport of livestock
There are six sections of ‘general’ standards in Part A of the LTS document that are applicable to all the livestock species, each of which contains one or more standards and a number of guidelines.
1. Responsibilities and planning
2. Stock-handling
3. Transport vehicles and facilities for livestock
4. Pre-transport selection of livestock.
5. Loading, transporting and unloading livestock
6. Humane destruction.
It is the responsibility of the consignor to ensure they only supply livestock that are assessed as ‘fit for the intended
journey’.
Part B: Species specific requirements
This section of the LTS document specifies the specific requirements for the transport of the various livestock
species, including specifying themaximum permitted time off water period for the particular classes of stock (adults, young, pregnant or lactating females, etc.) and the required minimum spell period (water, food and rest) once livestock reach the maximum permitted time off water period.
The species-specific guidelines give recommendations such as considerations for long-distance travel, fitness-to-load, food and water, loading density, vehicles and facilities, handling and humane destruction methods. More details of the specifics for sheep transport will be provided in future editions of Sheep Notes.
What animal species are covered by the Land Transport Standards?
The Livestock Transport Standards (LTS) apply to the major commercial livestock species (sheep, cattle, goats, pigs, deer, poultry and alpaca), but also apply to horses, buffalo, camels, emus and ostriches. They cover the transport of livestock by road and rail, and by livestock transport vehicles aboard a ship.
Who do the Land Transport Standards apply to?
The Standards will apply everyone (known as livestock operators) involved in the livestock transport process.
Livestock operators include the consignor, transporter and receiver of livestock and will often include saleyard and
feedlot operators, agents and livestock processing plants.
The chain of responsibility for livestock welfare in the transport process is:
- The consignor for the assembling and preparation of livestock, including the assessment and selection as ‘fit for the intended journey’, feed and water provisions, and holding periods before loading.
- The transporter for the journey, which involves the loading (including final inspection as ‘fit for the intended
journey’), the loading density, inspections and spelling periods during the journey, and unloading. - The receiver after unloading.
Thus, stock agents and saleyard operators can have roles as both receivers and consignors.
What are my obligations as a livestock operator (sheep producer)?
The LMA requires all livestock operators involved in the livestock transport process to comply with the Livestock
Transport Standards. There will be court penalties and/or infringements for those operators found to be in breach of
the standards.
Plastic fantastic for silage – oxygen barrier film
Frank Mickan, Fodder and Pasture Specialist – DPI Ellinbank
A recent advance in the sealing of silage pits, stacks and bunkers is the advent of the oxygen barrier (OB)
film. This is a triple co-extruded film comprised of two outer layers of polyethylene and a central layer of
polyamide. Traditional black, and white on black, films are manufactured from polyethylene only and, although
they appear to be impermeable to oxygen, they do actually allow air to diffuse into the stack at very slow rates. In
hot weather, the plastic becomes even more permeable and allows greater amounts of unwanted oxygen through.
Conversely, the OB film – a clear film made from about 70% polyethylene and 30% polyamide – is a highly effective oxygen barrier. It is much thinner than traditional plastic sheets (45 micron compared with 125– 200 micron), but its measured permeability to oxygen at set conditions is equivalent to over 20 sheets of the traditional 125 micron plastic film. It is, however, not stabilised against ultraviolet degradation in its construction.
Table 2 shows the results of an experiment comparing theconventional sealing system of white/black film plus tyres and the OB barrier film with a protective cover.
| Conventional tyre walls and black/white film |
OB film, sand bags and protective cover¹ |
|
|---|---|---|
| Dry matter content (%) | 23.7 b | 29.5 a |
| Acidity (pH) | 4.50 a | 3.82 b |
| Nitrogen content (%) | 1.51 a | 1.31 b |
| NDF² (%) | 55.0 a | 45.2 b |
| Ash (%) | 3.14 a | 2.78 b |
| Lactic acid (%) | 1.31 b | 2.21 a |
| Acetic acid (%) | 2.79 b | 4.26 a |
| Butyric acid (%) | 0.28 a | 0.06 b |
Source: University of Delaware Trials (Web site, QSS N/L)
¹ Silostop system
² NDF = Neutral Detergent Fibre
Note: ‘a’ and ‘b’ indicates statistically significant difference between
the treatments
The silage under the OB system underwent a dramatically improved fermentation and retained more nutritional quality within 0–0.5 m of the stack surface than under the conventional system. Dry matter losses were also significantly less (5–10% DM). Discolouration or surface spoilage and/or mould is often seen under traditional plastic films, whereas very little or none under the OB system in the top 0–0.3 m of the stacks, and sometimes to greater depths.
The translucent OB film is not treated against UV degradation so must be protected from sunlight and two appropriate systems have been developed: a two-step system where the OB wrapped silage is covered by either a traditional black film or a UVstable mat cover, or a black-on-white, co-extruded OB film.
Note: As for traditional films, the stack must still be sealed airtight and well weighted to gain maximum benefit from any sealing method used.
For further information on the application of OB systems visit www.agrig8.net.
The EDEED project – disease surveillance at saleyards and abattoirs
Alan Ross –Project Leader and Animal Health Officer, DPI Box Hill
The Early Detection of Emerging and Exotic Diseases (EDEED) project performs surveillance at saleyards and abattoirs for unusual or exotic diseases in sheep and goats. Under this project’s auspices during 2010–11, DPI Animal Health staff visited saleyards and abattoirs where more than 1.5 million sheep and goats had been yarded without finding any emergency animal diseases. This sample equates to over 10% of Victoria’s total sheep population.
Post-mortem examinations were conducted on 154 sheep and goats that were either found dead at saleyards or prior to slaughter at abattoirs, or were unfit for further processing or transport. The findings are summarised in Figure 4. Transport trauma or metabolic diseases, such as hypocalcaemia, were the major cause of death. Common endemic diseases such as pneumonia, bacterial arthritis and ovine Johne’s disease were also found. Internal parasites, cancers and the longterm consequences of plant poisonings were among the group of non-infectious diseases described. Although some cases remained without a final diagnosis, DPI staff excluded emergency animal diseases in all cases.
The EDEED project is performing effective disease surveillance on a large sample of Victoria’s sheep and goat flocks to protect market access for our sheep and goats and their produce. The project is co-funded by the Sheep and Goat Compensation Fund and DPI and has another year to run.
 |
|
Fig 4. Major categories of disease recorded in EDEED project in 2010–11 |
Lamb and Kid Mortality Surveillance Project
Drs John Ryan and Jeff Cave, District Veterinary Officers and Project Leaders, DPI Benalla and Wodonga.
The Lamb and Kid Mortality Surveillance Project (LKMSP) recently passed the 2‑year mark of this three‑year project.
The project aims to improve the understanding of the causes of lamb and kid mortality and, in turn, decrease
mortalities, increase farm productivity and profitability, and to increase DPI’s disease surveillance capacity for
exotic and emerging diseases.
Each year through the project 200 mortality investigations are conducted in lambs and kids aged between two weeks old and two weeks post-weaning. Figure 5 shows the distribution of lamb and kid disease
investigations throughout Victoria during the previous two years.
The most commonly diagnosed diseases were internal parasite disease (‘worms’), infections of the navel
(sometimes leading to a fatal septicaemia), enterotoxaemia (‘pulpy kidney’), copper deficiency (‘swayback’) and goitre (iodine deficiency – see Sheep Notes Autumn 2011), accounting for nearly half of the cases. Many of these were associated with the wet seasonal conditions experienced during the year.
The project is open to all sheep producers who wish to have the deaths of their lambs and kids investigated, and
the cost of the testing is subsidised. The project is cofunded by the Sheep and Goat Compensation Fund and
DPI. For more information regarding the LKMSP, please contact your local DPI Animal Health staff.
 |
|
Fig 5. Distribution of cases in LKMSP |
Flock biosecurity: think of your farm as an island
Dr Robert Suter: Disease Surveillance Project Leader – Sheep, DPI Attwood
The consequences of poor farm biosecurity practices were highlighted at the recent (May 2011) conference of the
Sheep Veterinary Society in Maribo, Denmark. In some cases, the diseases bought in with sheep resulted in high death rates and production losses (for example, buying in drench resistant worms); in other cases, imported sheep spread diseases that resulted in expensive nation-wide control and eradication programs. In every case, the speaker commented that ‘this disease came with sheep imported from country XX (or YY)’. There are lessons in this for all producers, because the principles of national biosecurity are the same as those for flock biosecurity.
Fortunately, to date, Australia has remained free of the major emergency diseases of livestock; their occurrence here would have severe trade repercussions for our industries that depend on being able to export to premium markets around the world (over 85% of our livestock production is exported). This freedom has arisen both from our isolation as an island nation, and through the application of the biosecurity principles of risk management.
This is not to say that we don’t get serious diseases: scrapie (see page 15) was introduced in 1952, but quickly eradicated; and sheep scab arrived at the time of colonisation to be successfully eradicated before Federation – something many overseas countries are envious about. Other pests are here to stay: at the time we eliminated sheep scab, the sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina was accidentally introduced to the ongoing concern of Australian sheep owners, and particularly so in the wet summer of 2010–11.
Nowadays, Australia does not allow the introduction of live sheep: imports from many counties arrive as second generation embryos after a rigorous program based on appropriate risk management. The source farm and country are assessed for likely disease risk and, if deemed of low risk to our industries, embryos are harvested in a quarantine facility. These embryos are implanted in sheep in an intermediate country deemed to be of low risk, where after sufficient time to confirm freedom from any diseases of concern, embryos are harvested from their progeny to be implanted in Australia. This process provides an appropriate level of protection to ensure Australia’s ongoing freedom from these major diseases of concern.
Farm biosecurity should follow the same principles of risk management to prevent the introduction of the severe
diseases we have within Australia including footrot, lice, brucellosis (Brucella ovis), Johne’s disease and drenchresistant worms. In most cases, these diseases are introduced through buying sheep, so beware.
There are tools available to perform a risk assessment which are a good starting point before buying sheep, such as accreditation programs and vendor declarations. Sheep with a low risk of having ovine Johne’s disease can be purchased from farms in the Market Assurance Program, and rams can be bought from a brucellosis accredited stud. The current Sheep Health Statement also provides information regarding disease risk in a mob of sheep.
Once at your farm, it is prudent to isolate these sheep until sufficient time has elapsed that you can monitor and/or test the sheep and be confident that they haven’t introduced a disease of concern – one that was not apparent during your pre-sale risk assessment. Contact your local veterinarian for more information as to appropriate risk management protocols.
By following similar principles to those that Australia uses to limit the introduction of disease will assist ensure that your sheep continue to prosper on a low-disease property.
|
|
Managing pastures for sheep on small farms
David Stewart, Small Landholder Information Service, DPI, Frankston
 |
Many small or new landholders do not have the necessary equipment to sow pastures and, when they try to engage outside help, they often have difficulty finding a local contractor who is interested in taking on smaller jobs.
We also frequently see examples where the work has been done, but, because of over-stocking, the new pastures fail to establish under the grazing pressure applied, and the time and money spent is wasted. Even experienced farmers in recent drier years have learnt that the difference between a comfortable stocking rate and over-stocking requiring constant hand feeding can often only be a relatively small difference in total sheep numbers. Therefore the accompanying article on growing more feed provides some guidelines for improving both the quantity and quality of feed for stock, without resowing.
Pasture production basics
Fiona Baker, Beef Industry Development Officer, DPI Ellinbank
“The quantity and quality of pasture and when it can be grown, underpin strategic decisions such as time of lambing, flock structure, stocking rates and target markets”… Making More from Sheep (producer manual).
How do you go about getting a good quantity of good-quality pasture? Firstly, you need to have a basis of reasonable species that will support good animal production and will respond to grazing management and good soil fertility. In this article we are therefore referring to perennial grass species (such as the introduced ryegrasses, phalaris and fescues, and some of the native grasses) with a component of legume (such as the sub clovers).
Grazing Management
The quantity of pasture grown depends on the way the pastures are grazed. Plants are solar factories – they absorb carbon dioxide from the air and use sunlight plus water from the soil to produce carbohydrates. These are used for plant growth and also stored as root reserves. The more leaf area, the better pasture grows.
If we graze our pastures too low and remove all the leaf so that only a small amount of stem remains, the plant has to rely on its root reserves to provide the energy for new leaf growth. It is not until leaf material is produced again that the plant can resume photosynthesis for energy production and growth.
 |
|
Fig 8. Ideal pasture mix of perennial ryegrass |
Also, if we graze our pastures for too long, we will decrease the root reserves. Leaving sheep too long in a paddock allows them to return to the plant and nip off the sweet new leaf that just been grown thanks to the root reserves. The plant now has to again rely on its root reserves to provide energy for another new leaf, without having had a chance to replenish the energy the roots used in growing the previous leaf. If this happens time and time again, the plant will run out of root reserves and die. The quantity of pasture able to be produced is now severely compromised.
The best system to maximise pasture growth is some form of rotational grazing, giving the pasture a rest and building up leaf and root reserves. However, due to animal management reasons, rotational grazing may not be suitable all year round (e.g. during lambing, or in small flocks, when relatively understocked).
Soil fertility
Another important driver of pasture growth is soil fertility – particularly soil phosphorus levels. Soils low in phosphorus (below an Olsen phosphorus level of 12) will limit the growth of many of the productive pasture species, particularly the clovers, thus affecting the quantity and quality of feed we can grow. A good proportion of clovers in a pasture will contribute to animal production by supplying nitrogen to the grasses, which also drives pasture growth. Annual or biannual (i.e. every second year) applications of phosphorus are needed to maintain current soil fertility levels because phosphorus is lost through the removal of meat and wool products off the farm. The amount of phosphorus you will need to apply will vary depending on your soil type and current production levels.
For further information see ‘Module 7 – Grow More Pasture’ from Making More from Sheep www.makingmorefromsheep.com.au) and ‘Pasture Management – holding onto good species’ in the Spring 2009 edition of Sheep Notes (also available on Fig 8. Ideal pasture mix of perennial ryegrass and subclover the DPI website).
Use of electronic ear tags and weighing scales for sheep
Dr Bruce Farquharson – veterinary consultant, Sydney NSW
 |
The use of electronic eartags can yield important information to assist in the management of sheep: in particular through the regular collection of body weights. The simplicity of weighing with the equipment available, combined with electronic eartags for individual identification, adds a new dimension to management. This gained information will assist in making the most appropriate and most profitable decisions.
Many sheep producers often weigh a sample of sheep at the end of a production cycle, such as at the time of sale
for lambs or at start of mating for ewes. Although this information is valuable, it is even more important to monitor
the sheep regularly to ensure the weight targets are reached. Comparing the live-weight of a sheep against the weight at a previous weighing will show the weight loss or weight gain of that animal. This data can be related to many aspects of management, including the quality and quantity of pasture the sheep are grazing, the amount of supplement being offered, the pregnancy or rearing status of the ewe, and the genetics of the sheep. Examples of when sheep weights provide useful information include:
- The weight gain of sheep is indicative of feed quality and quantity. Knowing the potential live-weight gain from pastures at various times of the year is essential if prime lambs are to meet the target slaughter weight and if breeding ewes are to reach their critical mating weight for the start of mating.
- Breeding ewes that lose weight as they approach mating, or early in mating, will have a lower conception rate. For every 1 kg lost by a ewe, the conception rate will be reduced by approximately 4%.
- Ewes that conceive twins cannot afford to lose net body weight during pregnancy if they are to deliver two viable lambs and rear them to weaning.
- Ewes that do rear twins will lose more weight during lactation than a ewe rearing a single lamb. This loss has to be recovered before next mating for that ewe to have an opportunity to again conceive twins.
- By knowing the amount of weight that has to be regained, ewes can be drafted electronically into different mobs and fed according to their requirements. Many farmers are introducing different genes into their flocks by purchasing rams from different sources, or rams with different estimated breeding values for various traits. The performance of their progeny, whether they are from maternal or terminal rams, will indicate the suitability of those genetics for the flock.
- In every flock there are high-yielding and low-yielding sheep. The high-yielding sheep need to be identified so female progeny from those ewes can be retained. Similarly, if the flock needs to be downsized for any reason, the low-yielding ewes can be sold.
Live-weights of sheep that have electronic eartags can be collected in many ways. These include:
weighing when in the sheep yards for other procedures
- walk-over weighing in the paddock as sheep go for water or a supplement
- using a small race set up in a gateway when moving sheep to another paddock.
All three possibilities will record the information, but drafting sheep according to the results is only possible in
sheep yards.
The Ruminant Feed Ban project
Alisa Heck, Project Leader ISO Systems, DPI Warrnambool
As mentioned in previous editions of Sheep Notes, Australia enjoys the global reputation of being free from Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs). The National TSE Surveillance program, where brains are collected from sheep and cattle displaying signs of TSE, is one of three monitoring programs that are in place to maintain this freedom and to continue to protect public and animal health and the interests of trade.
Another part of the program to maintain freedom is the Ruminant Feed Ban (RFB) inspection program. This program monitors the feeding of restricted animal material (RAM) to livestock. RAM includes such animal-derived material like meat, fish and poultry meals (including feathers), but does not include gelatine, milk products, oils extracted from fish, treated tallow or treated cooking oil. The ruminant feed ban prohibits the feeding of RAM to ruminants such as cattle, sheep, goats, deer, buffalos, camels, camelids and other cloven-hoofed species.
This ban has been in place since 1996 to help prevent the introduction and spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle (otherwise known as ‘mad cow disease’) and scrapie in sheep or goats throughout
Australia.
Each year, DPI undertakes a comprehensive, risk-based compliance inspection/audit program that targets all sectors of the livestock feed chain from renderers and stock food manufacturers, through stock food resellers to end-users. The ongoing inspection/audit program may identify nonconformities and implements corrective actions to maintain the integrity of the ban. In some cases, samples may be taken and tested for restricted animal material as part of the inspection/audit process.
End users of stock food, such as livestock producers, must not feed RAM, or compounded feed or meal containing RAM, or any product labelled as containing RAM, to a ruminant. Efforts must be made to prevent exposure of ruminants to restricted animal material (e.g. when using chicken litter as fertiliser).
Heavy penalties can apply to anyone found guilty of:
- feeding products contain RAM to ruminants
- providing ruminants access to RAM without taking reasonable measures to prevent such access
- supplying RAM to anyone else for feeding to ruminants.
For more information on the ruminant feed ban program or other Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Freedom Assurance Programs, such as financial producer subsidies for sheep and cattle brains please contact animal health staff atyour local DPI office.
 |
Animal welfare – a challenge for livestock industries
Dr David Champness, Principal Veterinary Officer –Livestock Management Standards, DPI Hamilton
To uphold Australia’s good reputation for animal welfare and maintain market access for our livestock and livestock
products, producers need to conform to good welfare practice, and demonstrate they are meeting Australia’s animal welfare standards. Consumers and retailers, such as the big supermarket chains, are increasingly looking for this assurance.
With support of the livestock industries, state governments are adopting Australian Animal Welfare Standards, such as the Land Transport of Livestock Standards (see associated article on page 8) and Pig Welfare Standards into enforceable legislation. Once finalised, the Cattle and Sheep Welfare Standards will also be legislated.
In Victoria, the various welfare Standards will be adopted under the new Livestock Management Act 2010 (LMA). The LMA has an innovative co-regulatory compliance provision whereby livestock industries can demonstrate conformance with the Standards through a DPI-approved compliance arrangement – i.e. an approved industry-based QA program in lieu of having DPI or RSPCA inspectors conducting on-farm management inspections.
Some of Australia’s livestock industries are well on the way to being able to demonstrate conformance with good animal welfare practice through their industry QA programs. Examples of some existing industry QA programs include:
- APIQ
developed by Australia Pork Ltd for the pig industry, TruckCare developed by the Australian Livestock Transporters Association for commercial livestock transporters, and - National Saleyards Quality Assurance (NSQA) Program developed for livestock saleyards.
Many currently available QA programs have been developed to meet customer needs for assurance of across multiple practices such as food safety, traceability, animal welfare and biosecurity. However, some QA programs have a single focus.
The Livestock Production Assurance Level 1 On-Farm Food Safety (LPA) managed by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) is only designed to provide assurance for food safety. It does not provide any assurance for compliance with animal welfare or biosecurity standards, and so does not meet the requirements of an approved compliance arrangement for livestock management standards.
In future, the Livestock Production Assurance On-Farm QA program (LPA QA) CattleCare and FlockCare or Agrisure may be suitable for livestock producers to meet the necessary requirements for demonstrating compliance with the Land Transport Standards and future Sheep and Cattle Welfare Standards, but at this stage there limited options for sheep and cattle producers.
The challenge for the sheep and cattle industries is to take responsibility for developing a suitable QA program to enable the industry to demonstrate that their producers and members are meeting their customers’ expectations of good on-farm animal welfare practices and are complying with the animal welfare standards.
| Location | Office Contact | Meat and Wool Services | Animal Health | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sheep Industry Development Officers | Soils and Farm Water Advice, Farm Planning* | |||
| Alexandra | 5772 0200 | |
||
| Ararat | 5352 2288 | |
|
|
| Bairnsdale | 5152 0600 | Darren Hickey | |
|
| Ballarat | 5336 6856 | Samantha Clayfield | |
Linda Fahy |
| Bendigo | 5030 4444 | Erica Schelfhorst | |
|
| Chris Cordiner | ||||
| Benalla | 5761 1611 | Lyndon Kubeil | |
|
| Box Hill | 9296 4400 | |
|
|
| Broadford | 57 840600 | |
||
| Camperdown | 5557 5888 | Robert Suter |
||
| Colac | 523355800 | |
|
|
| Echuca | 54 82 1922 | Garry Armstrong | |
|
| Ellinbank | 5624 2222 | |
|
|
| Geelong | 5226 4667 | Raquel Waller | |
|
| Hamilton | 5573 0900 | Anita Morant | |
|
| Horsham | 5362 2111 | Garry Hallam | |
|
| Frankston | 9785 0111 | |
||
| Kerang | |
|||
| Kyneton | 5421 1777 | |
||
| Leongatha | 5662 9900 | Ross Batten | |
|
| Maffra | 5147 0800 | |
|
|
| Nathalia | 5866 9909 | |||
| Orbost | 5161 1311 | |
||
| Rutherglen | Gervaise Gaunt Stuart Warner | |||
| St Arnaud | 54951700 | |
||
| Seymour | 5735 4300 | Jane Court | |
|
| Swan Hill | 5033 1290 | |
||
| Swifts Creek | 51595100 | |
||
| Tallangatta | 02 6071 5303 | |
|
|
| Tatura | 5833 5222 | |
||
| Wangaratta | 5723 8600 | |
|
|
| Warrnambool | 5561 9917 | Martin Dunstan | |
|
| Wodonga | 02 6043 7900 | |
||
EAD Hotline number
The Emergency Animal Disease Hotline number is: 1800 675 888
It is vital that livestock managers contact their veterinarian if any unusual signs or symptoms are seen in their stock.
Animal Health Staff of the Department of Primary Industries investigate suspect emergency disease cases at no cost.
Sheep lice control products available in Australia (August 2011)
Compiled by Noel Campbell, former Veterinary Parasitologist – DPI Attwood
| Time of application | Application method |
Chemical group | Example products |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off-shears | Backliner | Lice IGR1 | Zapp, Magnum, Stampede, IGR Pour-On, Triflumuron 25, Command Pour-On, Triffik, Exilice, Cannon |
| Fly IGR + Lice IGR | Magik, Clik plus | ||
| Spinosyn | Extinosad Pour-On | ||
| Neonicotinoid | Avenge | ||
| Synthetic pyrethroid | Clout-S, Cypercare, Spurt, Cypermethrin 25 | ||
| Spray-on | Organophosphate | Eureka Gold | |
| Short wool (up to 6 weeks wool) |
Dip | Lice IGR | Fleececare, Strike |
| Lice IGR | Extinosad | ||
| Magnesium Fluorosilicate |
Flockmaster Mk 2 | ||
| Organophosphate | Assassin, Wham | ||
| Long wool (6 weeks to six months wool) |
Hand jet | Lice IGR | Strike, Fleececare |
| Spray-o | Lice IGR | Magnum | |
| Long wool (6 weeks to 10 months wool) |
Spray-on | Synthetic Pyrethroid | Vanquish |
| Long wool (6 weeks to 10½ months wool) |
Hand jet | Macrocyclic Lactone | Blowfly and Lice Jetting Fluid, Paramax Multi-Purpose Concentrate, Zinjet |
| Long wool (6 weeks to 12 months wool) |
Jet2 | Spinosyn | Extinosad |
| Long wool (6 months to 12 months wool) |
Backliner | Spinosyn | Extinosad Pour-On |
