Beef Prices May Be Higher, But Here Are 5 Reasons To Eat It Anyway

by Amanda Radke in BEEF Daily

If you’re like me, you grill year-round, but for the rest of America, grilling season will soon be upon us. Can’t you just smell the ribeyes sizzling? Unfortunately, with beef prices so high, grilling season might look a lot different this year for Americans watching their food budget.

 

Bon Appetit magazine recently published an article entitled, “This Is Why You’ll Be Eating A Ton Of Chicken This Year.” The article warns consumers that drought might be raising the price of lettuce and oranges; while porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDv) in pigs is bumping up the price of pork. Plus, items like limes and coffee might cost a little extra this year as well.
Of course, the first item on the expensive food list is beef. Here is what the article had to say about beef:
“At $5.28/lb., the retail price of beef hit a record high this February—in large part thanks to side effects caused by ongoing droughts and extreme weather across the U.S. As of January, the number of American cattle herds were at their smallest since the 1950s, and the long, cold winter — and subsequent frozen grazing conditions — made it tough for some cows to put on weight. So when can we expect the prices to drop again? Probably not this year. According to the USDA, beef prices are projected to rise 2.5%-3.5% over the course of 2014.”
Thus, budget-conscious Americans might have fewer choices when it comes to their protein decisions this summer. However, it’s our task to show our consumers that the extra money is well spent. Here are five reasons why I think consumers should choose beef over chicken this grilling season:
1. Taste
A little salt and pepper is all it takes to make beef taste amazing. Chicken, on the other hand, needs seasoning and sauce. As Troy Marshall aptly puts it, “Chicken is just a carrier for the special sauce.”
2. Versatility
Most folks see chicken as the ultimate in versatility. After all, you can make it taste like whatever you want, depending on the enhancements you use. However, with breasts, drumsticks and wings as your three main choices, that can get boring quite quickly. Beef has endless possibilities with many cuts and cooking methods to switch things up. And these choices come at many different price points; so, with a little creativity, consumers can get the best bang for their buck with beef. Check out these "grill once, dine twice" recipe ideas from the South Dakota Beef Industry Council.
3. Wow Factor
Nobody celebrates a major milestone or special event with chicken. Actually, maybe they do, but I certainly don’t know them. Steak is the protein of choice for romance, celebrations, anniversaries, date nights and grill-outs. When you want to please that special someone or entertain a large crowd, beef brings the “wow” factor.
4. Tradition
Despite today’s high prices, many consumers have deep-seated traditions with beef. For instance, our family makes beef chili and stew in the crockpot every time we work cattle. Roast beef sandwiches are our favorite way to serve a big crowd. Steaks thrown on the grill are the best way to end a long working day. And there’s nothing easier or more affordable than grilling a burger patty or two when you’re short for time and need something quick and tasty to eat. Beef has been a go-to protein for Americans for so long, I don’t see them ditching it now just because of price.
5. Nutrition
Here are the facts: Beef is a nutritional powerhouse. Packed with zinc, iron and protein, as well as healthy fats and many cuts that can be a part of a healthy diet, beef is a super food!
Our task is clear, but our challenge is great: Despite this grilling season’s rising price tag for beef, we need to get to work to promote our product and keep it at the center of the grill and the center of the plate this spring and summer. These five talking points might be a great way to help us accomplish this task as we move into summer grilling season. Share this blog post on your social media sites to help get the conversation started!
The opinions of Amanda Radke do not necessarily reflect those of beefmagazine.com or the Penton Farm Progress Group.

GMO labeling: Not without costs

John Maday, Managing Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 04/28/2014

In 2013, genetically engineered (GE) varieties accounted for 95 percent of sugar beet, 93 percent of soy, and 90 percent of all cotton and corn acreage in the United States, according to a new report from the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). Ingredients from GE plants have for years been commonly used in foods around the world. About 70 percent of processed foods in U.S. supermarkets contain some GE ingredients, and yet at least 25 states have considered proposed legislation to require GE labeling of foods.
The report, titled “The Potential Impacts of Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Engineered Food in the United States,” was released this week. The authors use the term genetically engineered or GE in place of the more common term “genetically modified organism” or GMO, noting that conventional breeding methods modify organisms, making the term less accurate.
The task force that developed the report, led by University of California-Davis animal scientist Alison Van Eenennaam, PhD., included food scientists, economists, legal scholars and agricultural experts. They examined a range of issues, including public opinions, legal implications of consumer choice and right-to-know and food-safety implications.
Groups in favor of GE labeling generally make their case based on two points: First, that consumers have a right to know what is in their food and how it is produced, and secondly that GE foods could be unsafe.
The report’s authors note the right to know what is in food is different from the right to know how it was produced. Furthermore, this uniquely singles out GE technology – not other production methods and processes – for right to know.
They also note that GE crops are extensively tested, and over the past 20 years, the FDA has found that all 148 transgenic gene/crop combinations evaluated by the agency, including all biotech crops commercialized to date, are equivalent to their conventional counterparts. Japanese regulators independently reached the same conclusions for 189 submissions they reviewed, covering a wide range of plant species and introduced traits.
A handful of widely publicized small studies have claimed to find some adverse health impacts of GE foods on animals, the authors say, but these studies have been retracted and/or severely criticized by government and mainstream scientific organizations as poorly designed and unreliable.
The authors conclude the following:

1. There is no science-based reason to single out GE foods and feeds for mandatory process-based labeling.
2. Mandatory labeling based on process abandons the traditional U.S. practice of providing for consumer food preferences through voluntary product differentiation and labeling.
3. Market-driven voluntary labeling measures are currently providing consumers with non-GE choices.
4. Mandatory labeling could have negative implications for First Amendment rights and trade issues.
5. Mandatory labeling will increase food costs.

View the full report from CAST.

Vermont Passes GMO Labeling Law

If you haven't seen it in the popular press yet or heard it on the news.  Vermont has passed the first state law required foods with GMO (Genetically Modifed Organisms) included to be listed on label.  This is just my rant but I think we are opening a can of worm here.  In my view GMOs are poorly named for acceptance by the public and secondly I feel GMOs are the next step in breeding more productive plants.  Without improved productivity world wide feeding the ever increasing world population is going to be very hard.  The warm and fuzzy Norman Rockwell images of small scale farming is not going to sustainably feed the world.
Just my thoughts from this desk.
Patrick Kircher.

Don’t Save Pennies To Waste Dollars By Skipping A BSE

Andrew P. Griffith, University of Tennessee Extension
BEEF ONLINE

This time of year, many producers have calves already on the ground or some hitting the ground and are preparing for breeding season. With breeding season here, it’s time to have the veterinarian perform a Breeding Soundness Evaluation (BSE) on the herd sires.

There are some who would argue it costs too much to pay someone to perform the evaluation, or that one isn’t needed because the bulls did just fine last year. Those attitudes bring two questions to mind:
• If a BSE costs too much, then how much does it cost to not sell any calves next fall?
• If there’s not enough time to have a BSE performed on your bulls, then how much time is available next spring to watch a herd of open cows not calve?

Join the conversation! Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

The bull makes up half of every mating opportunity. He is necessary to produce a calf, and it’s integral that he is physically sound and fertile to improve the odds of conception. An infertile bull can cost an entire calf crop. The cost associated with no calves to market due to infertility is the cost of carrying those cows for a full year, plus the opportunity cost associated with the resources used on the cattle herd that likely could have been devoted to something else with a positive return.
While an infertile bull can cost a small fortune depending on the size of the cattle herd, a sub-fertile bull can also mean significant costs to a producer in two ways – a reduced conception and calving rate, and in pounds at weaning if he fails to settle a cow during her first heat cycle.
To explore this further, let’s consider an operation with 30 cows. The difference between a 90% calf crop (27 calves) with a fertile bull, and an 80% calf crop (24 calves) with a sub-fertile bull is three fewer calves from the sub-fertile bull. If those three additional calves from the fertile bull weighed 525 lbs. at weaning and brought $194/cwt., then they’d be worth $1,018.50/head, or a total of $3,055.50.
But the story doesn’t end there. Even if a sub-fertile bull settles the cows later in the season, it can cost a producer because cows bred in the first heat cycle will typically wean heavier calves than cattle settled in the second or third heat cycle.

 

A big payoff

So, if we assume that the average weaning weight of calves from the sub-fertile bull is 500 lbs., rather than the 525-lb. weaning weight of calves from the fertile bull, then we would have 25 lbs./head fewer to market. If that 500-lb. calf brought $200/cwt., then each calf would be worth $1,000. A total of 24 calves worth $1,000/head results in total revenue of $24,000. Meanwhile, 27 calves worth $1,018.50/head results in total revenue of $27,499.50. Thus, the fertile bull returned nearly $3,500 more than the sub-fertile bull.
In addition, the use of a sub-fertile bull could result in a much lower calf crop percentage than used in this example, which would cost a producer even more. So the question is: "can a producer afford not to have a BSE performed on the bull?"
The economic benefits associated with the decision to have the bull tested before the start of the breeding season seems to be fairly straightforward for producers with a defined breeding season. But how do producers with a continuous breeding season evaluate this decision? The answer is to transition the herd to a defined breeding and calving season.
Many factors can influence a bull's ability to breed, and it can be difficult to keep an eye on the bull for 365 days/year. When the cows are exposed to the bull year-round, it becomes difficult to determine if the reproductive inefficiency is with the cow or if it’s with the bull. Producers can have the bull tested at a certain time every year, but his fertility may be impacted in some manner during the year, which renders him unable to settle cows.
Of course, producers would recognize this inability at some point. However, the producer with a continuous breeding season would have to determine if it’s the bull or the cow that has the reproductive inefficiency. An inefficiency associated with a bull would likely be recognized more quickly in a herd with a defined breeding season.
Thus, the moral of the story is to have a BSE performed on all bulls before every breeding season, and work to establish a defined breeding season if one is not currently in place.
Andrew P. Griffith is an assistant professor in the University of Tennessee’s Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

Is There A Game Change Just Ahead For Ranchers?

by Harlan Hughes in Market Advisor

BEEF ONLINE

 

The beef market is changing and ranchers must critically examine their business plan moving into the next cattle cycle.

For 30 years prior to 2006, the beef industry operated with corn prices in the $2-$3/bu. range. During that time, the big discussion was how much corn was in government storage and what would be the release price. With relative steady corn prices, producers had a good feel for cost of gain (COG), which allowed them to focus management attention on the cattle cycles’ impact on cattle prices and drought’s impact on forage production.

Ethanol altered that scenario in late 2006, and corn prices became much more volatile for the next seven years (Figure 1). Corn prices rose into the $5 to $8/bu. range, and record corn prices were set in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012, with a near-record price in 2013.

Study the statistical trend line in Figure 1 and note the years when corn price was above or below that trend line. The result was that cash grain farming skyrocketed after 2006, drawing pasture and forage land into corn production, and prompting the liquidation of many beef cowherds.

In early 2006, I predicted another 10-year cattle cycle with increasing cow numbers. In the last half of 2006, however, when ethanol came on the scene in a big way, the game changed. Instead of increasing cattle numbers, the cattle cycle was broken and cattle numbers headed down (Figure 2).

Since late 2006, COG rose rapidly and became all-critical to economic survival. Growing weaned calves on grain generally was uneconomical. And volatile corn prices made it difficult to predict COG and thus to plan any profitable multiple-year marketing strategy. Note that the last cattle cycle peak was in 1995 and the industry is now in the 14th year of decreasing cow numbers.

After the 2006 game change due to the rise in grain prices, producers’ emphasis changed to growing weaned calves on forages, rather than on grain. That high COG, coupled with a major drought in 2012, helped continue the downward trend in beef cow numbers, which today are at a 60-year low (Figure 2).

Of course, fewer cows produce fewer calves, and today’s tight feeder calf numbers are impacting the beef industry’s infrastructure. The result is that some feedlots are closing while others are operating at lower capacity. Packers are also feeling the numbers pinch, as Cargill closed its Plainview, TX, plant last year, and National announced its closure later this spring of its Brawley, CA, beef processing plant.

Sign up now for BEEF Daily and get all the latest hot topics straight to your inbox!

Though it’s unlikely we’ll see $2-$3/bu. corn, USDA is projecting $4-$5 as the new “normal,” and the corn futures market reflects this range well into 2016. The result is that, once again, economists are predicting that ranchers will increase beef cow numbers.

Does this signal that it’s time for another producer game change? What will be the “production game” in an era of $4-$5/bu. corn under normal growing conditions? Can growing calves on grain once again compete as a profitable marketing option?

As ranchers begin to expand by holding back heifers for breeding, the feeder calf supply will continue to decrease. This should fuel added competition by feedlots for cattle placements. This, in turn, will spur producers’ intentions to expand.

However, the speed of expansion is limited by the biology of the beef cow. Each heifer held back will be at least two years old before she bears her first calf.

The traditional cycle will return

Based on these trends, I predict that the traditional cattle cycle of 9-11 years will return. Based on past historical cattle cycles, we’ll spend about five years building the national herd, and roughly the next five years after that to take it back apart, only to start the whole process over again. In the meantime, national droughts will alter this process whenever a drought occurs.

The quickest way to take advantage of today’s strong feeder calf prices is to hold off selling calves at weaning, and grow out your calves to heavier than normal weights. Current feeder cattle markets are rewarding producers who grow calves to heavier weights.

My mid-March price analysis confirms strong prices for all feeders (Figure 3, red price line). Figure 3 also depicts my calculated statistical price line for mid-December 2013 (yellow line). Most of the price premium since December 2013 has come on lighter-weight feeder steers, but heavier-weight feeder prices are also record high.

This month’s mid-March price analysis shows 800-lb. steers at $175/cwt.; 850-lb. steers at $168; 900-lb. steers at $162; and 925-lb. steers at $155/cwt. My 2013 backgrounding budgets for high rates of gain are the most profitable. Southern Plains cattlemen marketing heavyweight wheat-pastured cattle in March 2014 are enjoying the record prices.

My calculated feedlot profits for March 2014-finished cattle are at or near record levels for finished cattle. Feedlots making money appear to be willing and able to bid aggressively for replacements. I predict that heavyweight feeders will remain favorably priced for the next several years due to excess feedlot capacity.

The game change for this year, and for the next few years, is to market heavier backgrounded feeder cattle. This marketing strategy should work to ranchers’ advantage for the next several calf crops.

Harlan Hughes is a North Dakota State University professor emeritus. He lives in Kuna, ID. Reach him at 701-238-9607 or harlan.hughes@gte.net.

Study finds antibiotic-resistance genes in cattle manure

John Maday, Managing Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 04/24/2014

Researchers from Yale and the University of Connecticut report detecting genes relating to bacterial resistance to antibiotics in the manure of dairy cows.
The findings create some concern that introduction of these genes into the environment as manure is used as fertilizer could lead to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in humans or animals. The research results are published in the April 22 issue of mBio the online open-access journal of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM).
The researchers used a new combination of methods to examine the resistome of dairy cow manure, and constructed metagenomic libraries with DNA extracted from manure screened for resistance to beta-lactams, phenicols, aminoglycosides, and tetracyclines. Functional screening identified 80 different antibiotic resistance genes whose protein sequences were on average 50 to 60 percent identical to sequences deposited in GenBank. The resistance genes were frequently found in clusters and originated from a taxonomically diverse set of species, suggesting that some microorganisms in manure harbor multiple resistance genes.
“The diversity of genes we found is remarkable in itself considering the small set of five manure samples,” says Jo Handelsman, PhD, senior study author and microbiologist at Yale. “But also, these are evolutionarily distant from the genes we already have in the genetic databases, which largely represent (antibiotic resistant) genes we see in the clinic.”
According to a release from ASM, that might signal good news that antibiotic-resistant genes from cow gut bacteria are not currently causing problems for human patients. But, Wichmann points out, another possibility is that “cow manure harbors an unprecedented reservoir of AR genes” that could be next to move into humans.
Potentially, manure bacteria that contain antibiotic-resistant genes could colonize humans, or the genes from benign bacteria could move to human pathogens through a process called horizontal gene transfer. Gene transfer enables genes to jump between microorganisms that are not related, and it occurs in most environments that host bacteria, according to the ASM release.
The researchers hope the study will open up a larger field of surveillance to find and identify new types of resistance before they affect humans.
The mBio article is available online.

What Drives Value In a Feedyard Steer?

Burt Rutherford
BEEF Online

Is there a “holy grail” of feedyard efficiency, the one factor that will determine the color of ink at the bottom of the closeout?
Yes and no. While there are several factors that determine the value of a feedyard steer hanging on the rail, and therefore its potential profitability, one stands out—and that’s dry matter conversion or feed efficiency.
That’s what Decatur County Feedyard at Oberlin, KS, discovered when it analyzed a data set of 185,000 animals. While all feedyards are very intense in their data collection and analysis, Decatur County takes it to a higher level, individually identifying all the cattle it feeds and selling the cattle on the same grid to the same packer every week, which allows them to collect individual carcass data.
According to Kevin Unger, manager of the Decatur County Feedyard, looking at the data just on a lot-by-lot basis revealed that there was routinely a spread of from $554 to nearly $1,200/head difference in value. “That’s a huge number,” he says, and one that, if the reasons for the differences can be identified, can help a cattle feeder swing the odds very much in his favor.
Enjoy what you are reading? You might also like the gallery on beef industry leaders who shaped our industry!
So they looked at the individual data from each animal. Since there was a wide range of weights and prices, they slid all cattle to 625 lbs. in-weight and standardized prices at $6/bu. corn and $120/cwt. fed cattle. Those were the market averages at the time they did the analysis several years ago.
“What we found was, for us, dry matter conversion amounted to 35% (of the value of the carcass); carcass traits (quality grade and yield grade) amounted to 30%; carcass weight was 18%; and animal health was 17%,” Unger says.
In addition, he says market timing is a big factor in profitability. “Nobody in our outfit is good enough to tell you what the market is going to do,” he admits. So they look at historical data, which tells them that there are two highs in the fed cattle market – in the spring, usually in April; and a smaller peak in the fall.
“That’s a big concept for us,” Unger says. “And it also shows in our data on profitability. So market timing is one of the best hedges you can have against market volatility.”
Beyond that, his experience shows that how cattle are managed prior to their arrival at the feedyard has an effect on value. “We can have the best genetics in the world, but if we don’t manage them properly, we cannot make progress. So best management practices drive value, whether it’s animal health, nutrition, animal handling, animal welfare, whatever it is. Don’t forget the things that keep us in business.”

The Climate Police Are At It Again

by Burt Rutherford in BEEF Editors' Blog

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a draft report that, once again, questions the value of livestock production and animal protein in the diet.
The report, titled “Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change,” looks at many human activities and attempts to not only tie them to climate change, but to suggest ways those activities can be changed to mitigate the effects of climate change on the globe. The latest report is one of a series that has come out every seven years, says Chuck Rice, a Kansas State University (KSU) distinguished professor and soil microbiologist, and one of the lead authors of the agriculture chapter.
It is the fifth such report to be produced, and according to IPCC, it was a four-year effort involving 235 authors from 58 countries. The report is voluminous—the chapter on Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses alone is 181 pages—and the report covers many sectors of the global economy, including energy, transportation, buildings and industry.

Download the Ultimate Scouting Tool!

 

For background, the IPCC was established in 1988 as an international body for assessing the science related to climate change. It is a function of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations (UN) Environment Program to, as a factsheet says, “provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The assessments are policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive: they may present projections of future climate change based on different scenarios and the risks that climate change poses and discuss the implications of response options, but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take.”
While the report is rich in opportunities for analysis, let’s look at the agriculture chapter. “Agriculture globally contributes about 10% to 12% to greenhouse gas emissions,” Rice says in a KSU news release. “If you add in forestry, it moves it up to around 25%. Agriculture is significant but not the major contributor and has declined slightly, percentage-wise, since the last report in 2007, not so much because agriculture has changed that much but because the energy sector is contributing more.”
Rice says it’s important to remember that the IPPC report’s authors are not creating new science but rather assessing the current state of the science on how agriculture, forestry and land use contribute to and can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. They conducted literature reviews and summarized key points of the science that’s occurred since the last report in 2007.

 

 

He acknowledged that the words “climate change” can be controversial among some people, but added, “As far as greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations in the atmosphere, I don’t think there’s any controversy. Those are true measurements. The science is really solid on that. What people might question is, what’s the impact of those greenhouse gases?
“It is certainly clear by 97% of those climate scientists that the increases in greenhouse gases such as CO2, nitrous oxide and methane, have resulted in about a 1.5°F increase in global temperatures. That’s an important point, that it’s global. There’s a lot of variation around the globe. In time, our atmosphere goes through natural cycles and what the scientists are saying is that what we’re doing is enhancing those cycles,” Rice says.
The 18 authors of the agriculture and forestry chapter make some key recommendations. They include soil carbon sequestration through land management changes, no-till farming being chief among them; increasing crop yields and livestock feeding efficiency; reducing food waste; and…drum roll, please … pursuing changing human diets away from food animal production.
Rice acknowledges that this recommendation may be controversial, but the authors determined that changing human diets away from food animal products could help in mitigating greenhouse gases, according to the KSU release.
Here’s the logic behind that recommendation. “Methane emissions from livestock are a major contributor to agriculture’s footprint,” Rice says. “Approximately 40% of agriculture’s emissions are due to livestock and if we could reduce livestock that would reduce emissions.”
However, Rice says the report acknowledges that there are social and political barriers to all of these options. “Certainly the consumption of meat would be a social barrier. Traditionally, as countries increase their personal income, meat or protein consumption goes up,” Rice says in the release. But because livestock production is a contributor to greenhouse gasses, Rice says it had to be put on the table.
As you might expect, the beef industry’s statistics are a little different and take exception to the linear logic expressed by the report’s authors. According to the beef industry life-cycle assessment conducted by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and, important to this conversation, certified by NSF International, the beef industry in the U.S. has made and continues to make significant improvements in its energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the life-cycle assessment report, from 2005 to 2011, the beef industry in the U.S. reduced water use by 3%, reduced resource consumption and energy use by 2%, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 2%. “From 2005 to 2011, improvements in crop yields, machinery technology, irrigation techniques, fertilizer management, nutrition and animal performance have resulted in lowering the environmental footprint of the beef production process and improving on-farm sustainability,” according to an NCBA factsheet.
What’s more, beef industry sustainability expert Jude Capper says that, in 2007, cattlemen were significantly more environmentally sustainable than they were 30 years ago. Her analysis shows that today’s farmers and ranchers raise 13% more beef from 13% fewer cattle. When compared with beef production in 1977, each pound of beef produced today produces 18% fewer carbon emissions; takes 30% less land and requires 14% less water. In short, between 1977 and 2007, U.S. beef producers reduced their overall carbon footprint by 16%.
It’s important to recognize that the 40% figure quoted by Rice is a global estimate and the NCBA statistics are U.S. estimates, so making any direct comparison is difficult. And it’s not my goal to engage in “statistics ping-pong,” nor is it my goal to cast aspersions at Rice or the other authors of the agriculture chapter in the IPCC report.
But the statistics from NCBA and Capper do emphatically point out that, in the U.S. at least, farmers and ranchers are achieving the goal of increasing crop yields and livestock feeding efficiency. That, to me, makes the recommendation to move human diets away from food animal products shortsighted at best and socially and culturally dangerous at worst.
This is not the first time the UN has taken aim at livestock producers, and I’m certain it won’t be the last. But, if the UN really wants to make progress in mitigating climate change, perhaps it might be better served to aggressively pursue exporting the U.S. agriculture production system to the rest of the world, instead of aggressively trying to destroy it.

 

Report Says Organic Label Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up To Be

Grocery shopping these days can take all day if you spend the time to read every label, consider every farm story behind the product, and balance out the perceived benefits of those claims to what your food budget allows. I believe that both the blessing and the curse of today’s American food system is that we have so much choice. When our grandparents went to market, they bought such commodity basics as eggs, flour, milk, meat and sugar. With those basics, they created homemade meals from scratch; there was little thought to the ethics of production, or the safety, nutrition and environmental impact of the staples they purchased.
However, many of today’s shoppers think about all those concepts as they put food in their grocery carts. Brands, niche markets and different production methods evolved and flourished as a way for farmers and ranchers to earn a premium for producing something different. Due to societal trends and concerns, consumers wanted to learn more about their food and the people who produced it. And the better-heeled, at least, were willing to pay more for what they thought were higher-quality foods.
Somewhere along the way in the competition for consumers, the rhetoric changed from positive to negative. Organic, natural, grass-fed -- you name it -- began to target traditionally raised, conventional foods using fear-mongering to get folks to pay more for a “safer, healthier” product. Pushed by popular media, such misinformation and misconceptions are now commonly perceived as fact.

Join the conversation! Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

                by Amanda Radke in BEEF Daily

Despite the fact that USDA has repeatedly made statements that organic is not a healthier or safer food choice than conventional, consumers have been told otherwise in organic’s marketing claims.
“Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is organic a value judgment about nutrition or quality,” said USDA Secretary Dan Glickman in December 2000.
According to Food Navigator USA, “The organic food industry has been engaged in a multi-decade public disinformation campaign, a new report claims. The report -- which has been strongly criticized by the organic food lobby -- is based on a view of 200+ published academic, industry, and government research reports into why consumers buy organic foods.”
The report concludes that, “Consumers have spent years paying over the odds for organic foods based on the erroneous belief -- promulgated by stakeholders with a vested interest -- that they are healthier and safer than their conventional counterparts.” You can read the article here, and see the full report here.
While I support any and every way we can reach consumers and meet their demands, I would have to agree that negative attacks on conventional production have been a staple of organic's marketing programs. The result is that many of today’s consumers fear the products of conventional agriculture. Many moms I've visited with have told me they feel guilty if they can’t afford organic to feed their children. Worries about hormones, chemicals, toxins, animal abuse and more seem to be ubiquitous.
What do you think the best solution is for reassuring the general public about conventionally raised food? How can we best support all types of food production without slamming one method over another? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
The opinions of Amanda Radke are not necessarily those of Beefmagazine.com or the Penton Farm Progress Group.

Meeting the cows’ nutritional needs after calving

Warren Rusche, South Dakota Sate University Extension | Updated: 04/22/2014
Drover's Cattle Network

How to address the nutritional needs of a cow herd after calving is critically important to have a successful start to next year’s calf crop. To maintain a 365-day calving interval then re-breeding has to occur 82 days after calving. The cows needs to recover from calving and start cycling again during that time period while at the same time providing enough milk for her growing calf.
All of those demands impose a significantly higher nutrient requirement on cows after calving. Depending on her potential for milk production, a cow could require as much as 40 to 50 percent more energy and protein compared to the two months ahead of calving. Her needs for nutrients such as Vitamin A, calcium and phosphorus are much greater as well.
A major obstacle in meeting her needs during early lactation is the biological priority for nutrients. The first priority for any animal is to meet their maintenance needs first. The next priority in the case of 2- and 3-year old cows would be their requirements for growth. Providing milk for her calf is the third priority, and finally, if her nutrient intake is high enough she’ll reproduce. All four priorities need to be satisfied or there will be no calf to sell next year.
Another factor to keep in mind is weather conditions. As we move closer to spring, cold stress due to the absolute air temperature becomes less of a concern. However, spring moisture can create its own challenges. A haircoat that is completely soaked loses all of its insulation value. Under those conditions the energy requirements would increase by an additional 2 percent for every degree that the wind chill temperatures drop below 59⁰ F. Furthermore, as little as 2 inches of mud can increase the maintenance requirements of beef cattle by 10 percent.
So how do ranchers meet the needs of cows in the most cost effective manner? The answer depends somewhat on when calving season begins. If the start of calving season is timed so that peak grass production coincides with when cows are in early lactation, the forage resources might very well be sufficient to meet her needs without relying very heavily on harvested feedstuffs. That savings in feed is one of the greatest advantages for delaying the start of calving to match up with the grass production in a given environment.
If a ranch’s system involves calving earlier in the year, then the nutritional plan needs to take into account the cow’s higher requirements during early lactation. Ideally the feedstuffs have been tested to that the highest quality forages are saved for this time frame and then the proper supplements provided if needed.
Also keep in mind that because of the way that nutrients are partitioned by the cow, it is very difficult to feed a cow enough to increase body condition after calving. The typical response by the cow when more energy is fed is to increase milk production first before adding body reserves. That’s one of the reasons behind the standard recommendation to feed cows or heifers so that they are in a body condition score of 5 or 6 by calving time.

Average carcass weight up 12 pounds in 2013

Laura Mushrush | Updated: Apr 22, 2014
cattletradercenter.com

Total red meat production was slightly down in 2013 according to the USDA annual Livestock Slaughter summary released on Monday.
Red meat, which includes beef, veal, pork, lamb and mutton, totaled 49.3 billion pounds in commercial plants and 95.6 million pounds through on-farm slaughter.
Although efforts have been made to expand the national beef herd, beef production was down 1 percent from the previous year at 25.8 billion pounds.
2013 commercial cattle slaughter totaled 32.5 million head, also down 1 percent from the previous year. Federal inspection was 98.4 percent of that, with steers compromising 50.1 percent of the inspected total. Heifers followed at 28.6 percent, dairy cows at 9.8 percent, and the remainder 11.5 percent being other cows and bulls.
According to the report, the average live weight carcass is up 12 pounds from a year ago – weighing in at 1,314 pounds.
Click here to read the full report.

U.S. barbecues grow pricier as beef, pork reach record highs

Lisa Baertlein and P.J. Huffstutter, Reuters | Updated: 04/18/2014
Drover's Online

With the Chicago weather finally getting a little nicer, Chris Anderssen wanted to grill some burgers outside for a group of family and friends. When she got to the meat aisle at her local Jewel-Osco supermarket, a case of sticker shock made her change the menu: extra lean ground beef was $4.99 a pound.
"Five adults, four teenagers, that's a lot of hamburger to buy," said Anderssen, a 42-year-old mother of two who works as an office manager. She bought chicken instead for $2.99 a pound.
Retail beef and pork prices reached all-time highs last month, according to Bill Hahn, agricultural economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. That's prompting some consumers to pivot to less expensive protein sources and driving the grocery, packaged food and restaurant industries to adjust portion sizes, tweak their menus and roll out new products in a bid to address higher food costs without driving customers away.
Beef prices are higher because of rising feed costs and the decline of the U.S. domestic cattle herd, now the smallest since 1951. Pork prices have been rising in part because of a deadly piglet virus that began in Ohio last year and whose causes are still unknown.
Prices for beef and poultry destined for home consumption are forecast to rise as much as 4 percent in 2014, while pork prices may gain 3 percent, according to the USDA. The retail price for beef was $5.72 a pound in March, passing the previous record of $5.58 in February. A year ago the beef price was $5.26.
Pork retailed for $3.83 a pound in March, beating the former record high of $3.81 set last October. A year ago, pork was selling for $3.52, the USDA said.
Higher prices are benefiting producers including Tyson Foods Inc, the largest U.S. meat processor, which said on Jan. 31 that higher prices for beef and robust demand for chicken boosted its profits
Still, many consumers are sticking with meat.
Soaring prices "might dent the consumption a little bit, but right now the reason prices are high is because demand is good and supplies are low," Credit Suisse's New York-based food analyst Robert Moskow said. An improving U.S. economy is helping consumers stick with their favorite foods, said Wolfe Research retail analyst Scott Mushkin, also based in New York.
"People grumble about the price of bacon but still eat bacon," Mushkin said.
Edwin Laboy, known among his friends and family in West Palm Beach, Florida, for dishes ranging from pork spare ribs to whole roasted pigs, is among those unwilling to give up his favorite foods.
"I accept it," the 36-year-old utility company supervisor said. "I don't like it." Laboy said he and his brother decided to team up to buy the hog they roasted for a recent holiday celebration.
Food retailers are responding to higher prices by offering more small-sized fresh meat portions, said Phil Lempert, who's known as the "Supermarket guru" and writes the Lempert Report, a trade publication on grocery stories. "People are buying smarter," said Lempert, adding that some home cooks are stretching their food dollars by blending ground beef with vegetables and other ingredients in dishes like lasagna.
Demand for protein is also growing as consumers shift away from waistband-expanding foods featuring carbohydrates such as processed grains and added sugar.
Consumption of processed protein foods such as sausage, breakfast sandwiches, Greek yogurt and protein bars has grown 7 percent since 2009, according to Moskow. During that same period, consumption of foods made from processed carbohydrates, including snacks such as chips and crackers, have fallen 5 percent, said Moskow, who recently published a note titled "Return of the Caveman."
Packaged food sellers including Hillshire Brands Co, Hormel Foods Corp and Kraft Foods Group Inc have begun marketing new protein snacks. Kraft's "P3" snacks include small portions of cheese, nuts and meat in a package resembling the company's own Lunchables meal packs for kids, for which consumers are willing to pay higher prices because of their convenience.
Raising prices for more utilitarian packaged meats, however, has proven tricky.
Hillshire lost "fairly significant short-term market share" after boosting prices on sausages and hot dogs in December, months before rivals began following its lead, Moskow said.
Reluctant to take a similar risk, most traditional packaged food makers are scouring their businesses for cost savings to offset higher meat prices and lackluster demand for processed food.
Restaurant Operators
U.S. restaurant operators, many of whom are swallowing higher meat prices to avoid the risk of a consumer backlash, are switching to smaller as well as lower-quality cuts.
Bloomin' Brands Inc's Outback Steakhouse and Darden Restaurants Inc's LongHorn Steakhouse have promoted smaller "petite" steaks as well as seafood and chicken dinners, said ITG Investment Research restaurant analyst Steve West in St. Louis.
With chicken prices rising, the switch to poultry saves restaurants only so much, so some are heavily breading meat to add bulk while keeping menu prices in check, said Bob Goldin, an executive vice president at consulting firm Technomic in Chicago.
Buffalo Wild Wings Inc last summer started selling its namesake chicken wings by weight instead of by the piece. The pieces are never uniform in size, so the move should help the chain more effectively manage their cost, West said.
Higher prices for steak, avocados and cheese convinced Chipotle Mexican Grill, the popular burrito chain, that it couldn't delay raising prices any longer.
"It's been nearly three years since our last company-wide price increase, and while we want to remain accessible to our customers, we are at a point where we have to pass along these rapidly rising food costs," said Jack Hartung, Chipotle's chief financial officer, on a conference call with analysts on Thursday.
The moves are designed to help restaurants keep meat price increases in line with those at the supermarket.
Meanwhile, restaurants have already lost their grip on customers like Laboy, who doesn't order meat when he dines out.
"For the same price of steak at a restaurant, you can buy two to cook at home," said Laboy. Instead, these days, he orders sushi.

Saving the lesser prairie chicken: What landowners should know (Kansas Perspective)

This article is written for Kansas but it is interesting.
Drover's Online

Katie Allen, Kansas State University Extension | Updated: 04/17/2014

Cumulative habitat loss, encroachment by invasive woody plants, wind energy development, petroleum production and the ongoing drought are just a handful of reasons why there are fewer lesser prairie chickens in the wild today, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which recently announced the species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
K-State Research and Extension wildlife specialist Charlie Lee said the designation of the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species has been anticipated for some time. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s announcement in late March will go into effect the first full week in May, following a 30-day public comment period.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that last year, the range-wide population of the lesser prairie chicken declined to a record low of 17,616 birds, an almost 50 percent reduction from the 2012 population estimate. The five states included in that range—Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado—have a conservation plan in place with a population goal of 67,000 birds range-wide for a 10-year average.
“That doesn’t mean that we have to go from the current estimate of about 17,000 birds up to 67,000 one year, and then having once exceeded the goal, change the status again,” Lee said. “It means having 67,000 birds consistently for a 10-year timeframe.”
Lee said the listing might pose a challenge for some landowners, particularly in western Kansas, where the lesser prairie chicken lives. Significant habitat changes must occur to meet the 67,000-bird decade goal, and those changes will most likely have to come from livestock ranchers and grazers implementing conservation practices that benefit lesser prairie chickens. More normal rainfall patterns would also be beneficial.
Most crop producers will not be affected by the listing, he said, because the section 4(d) rule of the Endangered Species Act exempts most routine farming activity to protect the lesser prairie chicken, including agricultural practices on cultivated lands that are in crop production, as well as maintenance of infrastructure on these operations.
“However, they decided as part of the rule that properly managed grazing is important for lesser prairie chickens, and improperly managed grazing can impact them in a negative manner,” Lee said. “Haying of native grass might not be allowed. It’s not specified, but I think it could probably be implied, that a grazing plan could be required.”
Lee said he anticipates ranchers will face more changes for grazing, including possibly allowing only a certain number of livestock on a particular piece of rangeland and limiting the length of time they are allowed to graze, for the numbers of lesser prairie chickens to increase. It is speculation right now if producers will be required to have a grazing management plan in place, but Lee said that is how he interprets it if ranchers want the protection afforded by the 4(d) rule.
“The way I read the rule, the ranchers might be more affected than crop producers in this particular situation,” Lee said. “When you look at it, the lesser prairie chicken uses cropland for a minor amount of food certain times of the year. Rangeland is the primary habitat, and that is where most changes are going to have to take place.”
The listing also means no hunting season for the lesser prairie chicken, he said. Kansas has been the only state to allow hunting for the lesser prairie chicken in recent years.

Information about CRP
How about the landowners who have acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)? Rod Winkler, program specialist for CRP, U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) in Kansas, said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been working with the FSA to ensure implementation of all aspects of CRP has an overall positive impact on habitat for the lesser prairie chicken.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with the FSA, has been developing a conferencing document, or biological assessment, the past several months, Winkler said. The document should be completed soon.
“Most of the land in Kansas is privately owned,” he said. “Voluntary actions of private landowners are the key to maintaining, enhancing, restoring and connecting habitat for the species.”
Winkler said minimizing the effects of the listing on landowners, along with providing assurances and predictability within the conferencing effort with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on CRP, is important for voluntary landowners’ continued participation or future enrollment in the program.
The protections for CRP participants within the conferencing document, he said, provides assurances to participants during the CRP contract period and beyond expiration, by permitting them to make management decisions on their land regardless of whether that decision is to retain the permanent grass cover or convert back to crop production. The basis for this assurance is if one landowner makes the decision to convert the cover back to annual crop production, there will likely be another landowner making the decision to enroll land in CRP, which creates a balancing effect.
The effort has been, as much as possible, to keep the impact on CRP participants within the lesser prairie chicken region the same as those outside the region, Winkler said.
“There will, however, be some differences in a couple of areas, such as early land preparation,” Winkler said. “At the end of some contracts, early land prep can begin as early as May 1. We do not believe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will allow policy to permit action that early. It will be more in line with the end of the nesting season.”
Pushing early land preparation back allows for the lesser prairie chicken to fulfill its nesting and brooding season, which begins April 15 and goes through July 15, said Andy Burr, state biologist for Kansas’ NRCS.
Burr said many landowners who are in their final year of their CRP contracts are questioning now how early land preparation could be affected by the lesser prairie chicken threatened species listing. Early land preparation requests are accepted by the FSA. If destruction of the CRP cover is determined to cause adverse environmental effects, then the CRP participant must obtain an approved conservation plan from the NRCS for destruction of the CRP cover for planned crop production.
The conferencing document produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, with input from the FSA, will provide more answers on how CRP in Kansas will be affected due to the listing. In the meantime, those who are interested in learning more about the listing and how their land might be affected, can log on to the lesser prairie chicken website through K-State Research and Extension, which provides more information and other useful links.

Weather will dictate cattle trends this year

Weather will dictate cattle trends this year
John Maday, Managing Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 04/15/2014

Commercial cow slaughter has run at historically low levels so far this year, partly due to short supplies but also indicating ranchers intend to stabilize or expand their herds. The situation remains volatile though, and with drought appearing to be expanding in the West and Southwest, weather conditions will help determine the direction of herd numbers, according to the April Livestock, Poultry and Dairy Outlook report from USDA.
The report also notes that first-quarter commercial steer and heifer slaughter is on track to be the lowest since 1965. Slaughter weights have helped offset some of that loss of numbers, and irst-quarter beef production will likely be the lowest only since 2005.
Other key points in the report include:

• Corn prices have moved roughly $1 per bushel higher from postharvest lows and were given an additional boost in the intentions to plant fewer acres this year.
• Cow-calf producers should continue to see attractive cow prices for the near term because of low cow inventories and continued demand for ground beef products from culled cows. Those cow prices could be tempting to producers concerned with drought.
• Feeder-cattle prices could decline in the short term as grass-fever ebbs and fed-cattle values likely move lower seasonally, but short supplies suggest continued high prices calf and feeder prices later in 2014 and 2015.
• With feeding costs in the range of $129 to $130 per hundredweight and fed-cattle prices around $150 per hundredweight, cattle feeders are seeing positive margins around $200 per head. Prices could decline through the summer as large placements of heavy cattle from December through February reach market weights.
• Retail beef prices increased by 4 percent from $5.35 per pound for Choice beef in January to $5.58 in February. All-fresh beef prices increased by almost 5 percent, from $5.04 to $5.28 over the same period. Continued increases in beef prices could drive consumers toward alternative proteins.
• U.S. beef exports were up 4 percent through February 2014, while imports of beef were down 6 percent. The report increases the forecast for U.S. beef exports to 2.515 billion pounds due to strong demand for beef in Asia.
• ·Pork production is forecast to decline about 2 percent in 2014, largely as a result of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea. Prices of both hogs and pork will increase as a consequence. Reduced pork production will likely reduce U.S. pork exports and increase pork imports this year.
• The milk production forecast is raised in April. Given favorable milk-to-feed price ratios, cow numbers are expected to increase later in 2014; however the 2014 forecast number is unchanged from March. Continued robust domestic and export demand for dairy products tightens ending stocks and suggests higher dairy-product prices, except for nonfat dry milk, which is unchanged from last month in the report.
• Read the full April Livestock, Poultry and Dairy Outlook report from USDA.

Canola Field Day

Pearce to Host Lesser Prairie Chicken Town Halls

Washington, DC (April 14, 2014)—Congressman Steve Pearce announced today that he would host town halls for local citizens to meet face-to-face with and ask questions of federal officials regarding the impact of the lesser prairie chicken listing. Representatives from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management have been invited to attend. The town halls will be held on the following dates:

• April 14, 1 PM at the Lovington Chamber of Commerce, 201 S Main Ave
• April 15, 1 PM at the Roswell Chamber of Commerce, 131 W 2nd St
• April 16, 10 AM at the Portales Chamber of Commerce, 100 S Ave A

“I encourage all residents affected by the lesser prairie chicken listing to attend one of these town hall meetings,” Pearce said. “You have a right to ask government officials why they made the decisions they made. Their choices affect your right to farm your land, graze your cattle, or continue the energy boom that’s created so many good-paying jobs throughout Southeastern New Mexico. Federal officials owe New Mexicans an explanation for why their extraordinary cooperative efforts to preserve lesser prairie chicken habitat were not good enough.”

Late, Dry Spring Threatens Expansion

Wes Ishmael
Beef Online

When Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension livestock marketing specialist, looks at the current U.S. drought map, he sees too much red and brown.

“According to the latest Drought Monitor, five states among the top 10 beef cattle states have the largest areas (percent of state area) of marginal drought conditions (D1 and D2 on the D0 to D4 scale), including Iowa (57%); Kansas (85%); Nebraska (61%); Oklahoma (54%); and Texas (39%),” Peel explains in his weekly market comments. “With the exception of Iowa, all of these states showed strong indications of herd expansion with significant increases in beef replacement heifers on Jan. 1… These four states accounted for 31% of the U.S. beef cowherd on Jan. 1, and the ability of these states to maintain herd expansion plans will likely determine the overall impact on the U.S. beef cow inventory in 2014.”

Unfortunately, Peel points out the current weather outlooks expect drought to persist into the summer from southwest Kansas to areas south and west. That includes western Oklahoma, West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, California and Oregon.

“These last six states accounted for nearly 8% of beef cows on Jan. 1, 2014,” Peel says. “An El Niño is forecast to develop this summer or fall, which will likely bring some relief to much of this region but perhaps not soon enough to avoid additional liquidation in the first half of 2014.”

Subscribe now to Cow-Calf Weekly to get the latest industry research and information in your inbox every Friday!
Conversely, other parts of the country anticipate improving moisture conditions, although forage has been delayed by the long, frigid winter.

“If current forecasts are realized, improved conditions in the central Great Plains and eastern Southern Plains may be enough to support limited beef cowherd expansion in 2014,” Peel says. “However, conditions in this region will likely either improve or deteriorate with typical warm and windy spring weather in the next few weeks. Forage and water supplies will tighten rapidly and soon without moisture. Failure to sustain herd expansion plans in the Central and Southern Plains will result in no growth or more herd liquidation for the entire country in 2014. The next few weeks will be critical in these states and has implications for the entire beef cattle industry.”

Say ‘adios’ to La Nada

Angela Bowman, Staff Writer | Updated: 04/09/2014

There’s a 70 percent chance El Niño will return to the United States this year, and early data suggests it could warming up to be a mighty one.
“We have above-normal temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean and that often precedes an El Niño because there’s a large volume of above-average water temperature below the surface of the ocean,” Anthony Barnston, chief forecaster for the International Research Institute for Climate and Society, told ABC News. “Volume often tends to come up to the surface; often, but not always.”
“That’s the uncertainty,” Barnston adds. “It’s more likely to rise than not.”
Barnston suggests El Niño will likely El Niño between April and June and last until the start of 2015.
Globally, the return of El Niño could make 2014 the warmest year on record, with billions of dollars in losses for food crops. It could also increase drought in Indonesia and ignite more wildfires in Australia.
Domestically, however, El Niño could bring a wetter-than-normal season on the West Coast and in the South. Though it would be welcomed relief from the current drought conditions plaguing these areas, it could also lead to flooding and mudslides.
Read, “2014 El Niño Warming Up to Be a Mighty One?”
The last big El Niño event was 1997-1998, which ended up causing $3 billion in agricultural damage. Read more here.
In early March, federal forecasters issued an “El Niño watch,” indicating a 50 percent chance El Niño would develop this summer or fall.

Two More Countries Lift BSE-Related Bans On U.S. Beef

Joe Schuele, U.S. Meat Export Federation
Beef Magazine Online


In March, two trading partners agreed to resume imports of U.S. beef for the first time since December 2003. Ecuador and Sri Lanka were among a handful of nations that had never reopened after the first U.S. case of BSE, but both are now accepting U.S. beef.
Ecuador offers strong potential for U.S. beef offal sales
Exports to Ecuador face very few restrictions, with muscle cuts and offal items from cattle of all ages now eligible.
“That’s a huge bonus in a market where we expect to export a significant volume of offal products,” says Cheyenne Dixon, U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) technical services manager.
The only significant constraint involves beef derived from cattle imported from Canada, in which case the animal must be in the U.S. for 60 days prior to slaughter.
“We hope this restriction is temporary, and it is a point on which the U.S. and Ecuadorian governments continue to negotiate,” Dixon explains. “But products derived from all domestic cattle are eligible, as well as beef from cattle imported from Mexico.”
In addition to providing high-quality beef cuts for Ecuador’s hotel and restaurant sectors, USMEF expects U.S. exporters to find success with variety meat items such as beef tripe, livers and hearts. Two introductory seminars for Ecuadorian importers are planned later this month – one in the capital city of Quito and one in Ecuador’s largest city, Guayaquil.
According to the Global Trade Atlas, Ecuador imported 1,006 metric tons (mt) of beef last year at a value of $4.5 million – down about 10% from 2012. Chile was Ecuador’s leading beef supplier, followed by Uruguay.

Sri Lanka's tourism push offers potential for U.S. beef products
Located off the southeastern coast of India, Sri Lanka was plagued by civil war and ongoing political conflict until 2009. The country was also devastated by a deadly tsunami in 2004. But recently, Sri Lankans have enjoyed a much more peaceful existence, which has led to economic growth and a revitalized tourism sector.
“Sri Lanka has ambitious plans to make it onto the ‘A list’ of Asian tourist destinations, in line with Bali (Indonesia) and several locations in Thailand,” says Joel Haggard, USMEF senior vice president for the Asia Pacific.
Haggard also notes that the capital city of Colombo, which has a greater-metropolitan population of approximately 1.5 million people, has several modern supermarket chains that currently rely mostly on domestic products.
Sign up now for BEEF Daily and get all the latest hot topics straight to your inbox!
“Sri Lanka’s retail sector is expanding rapidly and there are certainly growth opportunities there for U.S. beef,” Haggard says.
Recently a group of veterinary officials from Sri Lanka’s Central Department of Animal Production and Health received an in-depth look at the U.S. beef industry as part of the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service’s Cochran Fellowship Program. Tiskumarage Aruni Tiskumara, DVM, who headed the delegation, expressed confidence in the safety and quality of U.S. beef.
“We had good exposure to all of the systems the U.S. beef industry has adopted,” she explains. “We are quite satisfied with the processing regulations and with the biosecurity aspects as well.”
Tiskumara noted that the “negligible risk” designation for BSE from the World Organization for Animal Health, which the U.S. received in May 2013, was a key factor in Sri Lanka’s decision to reopen the market.
“Until the U.S. achieved negligible risk status, we were not interested in U.S. beef,” she said. “But now that you have the negligible risk designation, technically there is no reason why we should not import beef from the U.S.A.”
Sri Lanka is also open to U.S. beef from cattle of all ages. Last year, Sri Lanka imported 74 mt of beef – mostly from Australia – valued at about $400,000.
Markets that remain closed to U.S. beef due to BSE include China, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Morocco, Israel and South Africa. Saudi Arabia reopened to U.S. beef in 2004, but suspended imports after a BSE case was detected in California in April 2012.
Joe Schuele is communications director for the U.S. Meat Export Federation.

States File Suit Against FWS for Lesser Prairie Chicken ESA Designation

Janell Baum for Beef Producer
BEEF ONLINE

Kansas and North Dakota are the latest states to join a three-state lawsuit brought by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt challenging the process by which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to list the lesser prairie chicken as threatened.
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt formally filed papers for Kansas to join the suit last week; North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem has also joined.
Schmidt says the suit challenges the use of a process often called "sue and settle," by which private interest groups can sue federal agencies and then enter into consent decrees that compel the agencies the take certain actions.
One of those so-called "citizen suits" led to the federal court order that ultimately forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make the March 27 decision that listed the lesser prairie chicken as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, Schmidt claims.

To read more about the lawsuit, click here.

Sign-up date for farmer and rancher disaster assistance programs

USDA | Updated: 04/07/2014

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced today that farmers and ranchers can sign-up for disaster assistance programs, reestablished and strengthened by the 2014 Farm Bill, beginning Tuesday, April 15, 2014. Quick implementation of the programs has been a top priority for USDA.
"These programs will provide long-awaited disaster relief for many livestock producers who have endured significant financial hardship from weather-related disasters while the programs were expired and awaiting Congressional action," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "President Obama and I prioritized the implementation of these disaster assistance programs now that the Farm Bill has restored and strengthened them."
The Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) and the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) will provide payments to eligible producers for livestock deaths and grazing losses that have occurred since the expiration of the livestock disaster assistance programs in 2011, and including calendar years 2012, 2013, and 2014.
Enrollment also begins on April 15 for producers with losses covered by the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP) and the Tree Assistance Program (TAP).

• LIP provides compensation to eligible livestock producers that have suffered livestock death losses in excess of normal mortality due to adverse weather. Eligible livestock includes beef cattle, dairy cattle, bison, poultry, sheep, swine, horses, and other livestock as determined by the Secretary.
• LFP provides compensation to eligible livestock producers that have suffered grazing losses due to drought or fire on publicly managed land. An eligible livestock producer must own, cash lease, or be a contract grower of eligible livestock during the 60 calendar days before the beginning date of the qualifying drought or fire in a county that is rated by the U.S. Drought Monitor as D2, D3, or D4.
• ELAP provides emergency assistance to eligible producers of livestock, honeybees and farm-raised fish that have losses due to disease, adverse weather, or other conditions, such as blizzards and wildfires, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.
• TAP provides financial assistance to qualifying orchardists and nursery tree growers to replant or rehabilitate eligible trees, bushes and vines damaged by natural disasters.

USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) employees have worked exceptionally hard over the past two months to ensure eligible farmers and ranchers would be able to enroll to receive disaster relief on April 15.
To expedite applications, all producers who experienced losses are encouraged to collect records documenting these losses in preparation for the enrollment in these disaster assistance programs. Information on the types of records necessary can be provided by local FSA county offices. Producers also are encouraged to contact their county office ahead of time to schedule an appointment.
For more information, producers may review the 2014 Farm Bill Fact Sheet, ELAP and TAP fact sheets online, or visit any local FSA office or USDA Service Center.

Establishing Native Grass

Commentary: Caribbean caper

Dan Murphy | Updated: 04/04/2014

When you hear the phrase ‘Cayman Islands hedge fund,’ what comes to mind? Billionaires, financiers and venture capitalists, right? Now you can add (alleged) ‘animal activist group.’
One of the most irritating aspects of wading through the river of rhetoric that flows like the tides form the activist community dedicated to demonizing animal agriculture is the holier-then-thou tone that permeates their messaging.
Not only is the cause of animal rights or vegan lifestyles so much more than important than other priorities — affordable food, farm-sector security, rural development, among other issues — but the goals of most groups are cloaked in a moral superiority that justifies whatever tactics these groups decide to use.
Name-calling, mud-slinging, even property destruction and vandalism — it all gets whitewashed because no matter how far extremists go beyond what’s reasonable and appropriate, it’s okay — it’s for “the cause.”
Honestly, you’d have to spend a weekend at an animal rights convention to fully appreciate the parallel universe in which most true believer/veggie activists exist. And unlike religious evangelist types, they’re not interested in converting someone who isn’t onboard with their worldview. Instead, they react with laser-like loathing and criticism. If you support animal agriculture and meat-eating, then everything about your lifestyle and your personal values is corrupt.
But let’s turn that blanket condemnation around. If activists are engaged in something untoward, does that taint the entire organizational mission?
Here’s Exhibit A, and — surprise! — it involves the Humane Society of the United States, a group of professional charlatans who continue to suck up donations from unsuspecting supporters who mistakenly believe their money is helping to support local Humane Society pet rescue operations.
Parking its funding offshore
It turns out that the holier-than-thou HSUS is right there in bed with vulture capitalists and assorted “high net worth” financiers who stash their money offshore (wink, wink) as “investment vehicles.”
According to an investigation by Washington, D.C.-based Humane Watch, HSUS’s 2012 tax return shows a total of $25.7 million in various funds in the “Central American and the Caribbean” region.
“Where exactly is this $26 million invested?” the report stated. “It turns out HSUS funneled mega-bucks to several funds located in the Cayman Islands. You know — the secretive place where secretive people stuff their secretive money. Bond villain-type stuff.”
According to HSUS’s 990-T and supplemental tax forms, the funds are invested as follows:

• $500,000 to Ascend Partners Fund I, L.P., a Cayman hedge fund
• $253,000 to BKM Holdings Ltd. (Caymans)
• $8 million to Fore Multi Strategy Offshore Fund, Ltd. (Caymans)
• $5 million to Hayman Capital Offshore Partners, L.P. (Bermuda)
• $6.7 million invested in Fir Tree International Value Fund (Caymans)

In its report, Humane Watch asked the obvious question: “Why would a U.S. charity be putting $26 million in the Caribbean?”
Allow me to answer that question. Ostensibly, HSUS is a non-profit that never tires of touting its track record in advocating for animal welfare. That’s what they say their mission is all about.
But like any other multi-million dollar organization these days, HSUS understands that parking money offshore provides valuable investment and tax benefits. Like spending the money the group raises through fund-raising on even more fund-raising, its “Caymans strategy” is justified because it’s in service to the noble cause of animal welfare.
But the bottom line for HSUS is clearly the bottom line. More money means more leverage. A bigger bank account funds high-level anti-industry campaigns. And the investment returns on a multi-million portfolio support “competitive” salaries for HSUS executives, plus extra cash to use in lobbying efforts.
Despite what their marketing materials claim, the group is not in the business of funneling cash to struggling local pet shelters and rescue operations, it’s priority is investing money in hedge funds to make as big a profit as possible.
As Humane Watch noted, “It’s hard to save animals when you’ve parked $25 million offshore.”
All those well-meaning donors who truly care about homeless and abandoned pets ought to simply write a check directly to their local shelter, rather than forking over cash to an organization that takes that donation and sticks it into an offshore bank account.
Hard to square that “strategy” with the crying need to support the local organizations doing the actual work of saving animals.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Murphy, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.

USDA announces $20 million feral swine control program

Laura Mushrush, Assistant Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 04/04/2014

ShareThis Resize text

Feral swine often forage alongside livestock and eat grains, mineral blocks, and other items intended for cattle. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Veterinary Services animal health experts are concerned such close contact can result in the transmission of disease from feral swine to livestock and people. USDA APHIS photo by Justin Stevenson. Destructive, disease ridden, razorback – all words used to describe feral swine that are rapidly becoming a growing nuisance to farmers and ranchers.
“Feral swine are one of the most destructive invaders a state can have,” says Undersecretary for USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs Edward Avalos in a USDA release. “They have expanded their range from 17 to 39 states in the last 30 years and cause damage to crops, kill young livestock, destroy property, harm natural resources, and carry diseases that threaten other animals as well as people and water supplies. It’s critical that we act now to begin appropriate management of this costly problem.”
On April 2, USDA announced a $20 million program led by the Wildlife Service of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) designed to help states control the expanding population of feral swine.
According to Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Wildlife and Fisheries Specialist Billy Higginbotham, feral hogs are the most prolific large mammals on earth.
“The average is between 5 and 6 pigs per litter. Sows have approximately 1.5 litters per year,” says Higginbotham. “Young females do not typically have their first litter until they are 13+ months of age, even though they can be sexually mature at 6 to 8 months of age or even earlier in some cases.”
USDA APHIS photo Tyler Campbell. Their booming population across 78 percent of the states in the country have caused approximately $1.5 billion in damages and control across the U.S. While holding fame for rooting and wallowing high-value crops and destroying natural resources, diseases that can be transferred to people, wildlife, water supplies and domestic animals, including domestic swine, are most worrisome.
“In addition to the costly damage to agricultural and natural resources, the diseases these animals carry present a real threat to our swine populations,” says Avalos. “Feral swine are able to carry and transmit up to 30 diseases and 37 different parasites to livestock, people, pets and wildlife, so surveillance and disease monitoring is another keystone to this program.”
Feral swine wallowing activities cause property damage, soil compaction and erosion. USDA APHIS photo Tyler Campbell. APHIS plans to have the program operating within the next six months, focusing on testing for feral swine diseases most concerning for U.S. pork produces including, swine brucellosis, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, swine influenza, pseudorabies and classical swine fever.
Coordinating projects with Canada and Mexico will also take place.
“We’ve already begun this type of work through a pilot program in New Mexico,” concludes Avalos. “Through this pilot program, we have successfully removed feral swine from 5.3 million acres of land. By applying the techniques such as trap monitors and surveillance cameras we have developed through this pilot project, we aim to eliminate feral swine from two States every three to five years and stabilize feral swine damage within 10 years.”