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.
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.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, April 21, 2014
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
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:
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.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)