Sticker Shock Examples
Here are just a few scenarios of sticker shock in beef cattle production.

1) The herd sire purchase
Bull seems expensive→producer passes on quality bull for cheaper bull→cheaper bull has lower genetic merit→bull produces lower value calves and lower genetic merit herd replacements→income is reduced by more than what it would have cost to get the better bull in the first place→lower genetic merit replacements by the cheap bull calve→income is further reduced→now producer has even less money for purchases

2) The feed purchase
Feed seems expensive→producers buys lower quality and less feed→cows get thin, heifers cycle late, calves weight light→more calving difficulty with thin females→cows and heifers breed late or not at all→thin cattle more likely to get sick→fewer pounds of cattle to market→income is reduced→producer eventually has to purchase more and better feed to get remaining cattle back into shape but production targets may still be compromised

3) The seed purchase
Improved forage seed seems expensive→producers opts out of renovating pasture→forage yields, quality, and grazing animal performance suffer→producer sees neighbor with productive forage stands of improved forage→producer finally adopts this technology with the same or higher investment that would have been paid last year but has missed out on a year of its benefits

Evaluate with Partial Budgeting
Partial budgeting is a handy exercise that compares net returns (profit) between making or not making a particular change in the beef cattle operation. For example, deciding whether or not to artificially inseminate a group of cattle could be evaluated for its effect on profit by using a partial budget. A partial budget consists of 4 sections: increased returns, decreased costs, decreased returns, and increased costs. Increases in values in the first 2 sections improve profit, whereas increased in the latter 2 sections decrease profit. Most management changes will affect all 4 of these categories in the partial budget but to varying degrees. The sum of all these effects is the bottom line change to profit and the economic basis for accepting or rejecting the proposed change to the operation.

Items that cause sticker shock are input purchases. Purchases raise the increased costs section of the partial budget. For illustration, if fertilizer is purchased, then this expenditure increases costs. Sticker shock items may, however, replace or lessen another purchase and so also improve the decreased costs section of the budget. If fertilizer is purchased, then less hay and supplemental feed may need to be purchased, thereby decreasing these costs. Thirdly, sticker shock items may affect returns in 1 or more ways. If fertilizer is purchased, then more and higher quality forage will likely be produced. This can lead to higher reproductive performance of breeding cattle consuming this forage and ultimately produce more calves to market later, thus increasing returns. The same use of fertilizer may improve growth performance of existing calves and result in more pounds per calf to market, also affecting returns. Of course, if more cattle are pregnant because of the fertilizer purchase, then fewer may be culled, and returns from cull sales would then be lower. The list of effects of a fertilizer purchase could go on, and all of these effects need to be included in the partial budget to make the best possible decision.

With partial budgeting, producers can truly evaluate the profitability of purchases that cause heartburn when looking at the price tag. This objective approach takes the emotional bias associated with sticker shock out of the equation. Then producers can make decisions on input purchases based on business sense.

Consider Other Impacts on Finances
Additional expenditures make managing cash flow and borrowing even more critical. With more money going in and out of the operation, having enough available funds to cover current bills at any given point in time can be affected. In addition, purchases of sticker shock items may impact the timing of other costs and returns in the operation, also affecting cash flow.

Going back to the fertilizer example, fewer cull cows now vs. more pounds of calf now and later changes the timing of returns to the cattle operation. Likewise, more costs now with the fertilizer purchase itself may lessen other nutrition-related costs at a later time. So, even decisions determined to be potential profitable using the partial budgeting approach must also be acceptable in terms of cash flow in and out of the cattle operation.

Sticker Shock Can Change
In the current market environment, input prices can move drastically in short time spans. For instance, prices for a particular commodity feedstuff can move $20 per ton or more in as little as 1 week. Seasonal highs and lows are difficult to predict, and today’s sticker shock-inducing price could be tomorrow’s bargain. Producers must gather information and be prepared to make reasonable and timely purchasing decisions even with future price uncertainty.

For more information about beef cattle production, contact an office of the Mississippi State University Extension Service.

Source: Jane Parish – Extension Beef Cattle Specialist, Mississippi State University

Source: Cattle Trader Center
 

Research firm Battelle conducted the study, which describes the importance of Agriculture and agricultural biosciences, which the researchers call agbioscience, to the present and future economic health of the United States. The report is titled “Power and Promise: Agbioscience in the North Central United States.”

The research finds that not only does agbioscience provide wide-ranging opportunities for economic growth and job creation, but also that the work of agricultural research and Extension professionals at Land Grant universities is developing advancements that address national and global needs, including agricultural productivity, food security, human health, renewable resource development and environmental sustainability.

“In the ‘BioCentury’ that is the 21st Century,” the authors note, “Land-Grant universities, and their experiment stations and Extension services, are on the frontline of sustaining and securing America’s leadership and competitiveness in what is, and will be, the key macroeconomic sector of our time. As this report shows, sustaining these institutions, further investing in them, and addressing their challenges is of central importance to a sustainable economic future for the United States.”

The report notes these points illustrating the importance of agriculture in the United States and particularly in the North Central region:

•Comprising just 6.1 percent of global land area, the United States in 2009-10 produced 18.7percent of the world’s grains, 22.4 percent of global oilseeds and is the worldwide leader in beef and poultry production, with 20.8 percent and 23.2 percent of global production respectively
•The North Central region – comprising the twelve states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio – leads the way for U.S. agricultural production. With 21 percent of U.S. land, the North Central region produces 45 percent of U.S. agricultural exports, and over 80 percent of key exports such as soybeans and feed grains, and more than 60 percent of meat and livestock exports.
•In addition to the more than 800,000 farms in the region, the report finds that North Central states contained more than 88,000 companies participating in the agribusiness value-added chain through the manufacturing of products and the provision of services. Taken together these farms and industries employ almost 2.4 million people with an economic output of $125 billion and pay, on average, $2,600 more per job than the average pay level for other private sector workers in the region.
The authors warn however, that an awareness gap threatens support for agricultural research. “The public, media and political leaders inherently understand the importance of biomedical research to discovering new cures and treatments for disease and the impact this has on human lives,” they note, “but may have less knowledge of the more complex relationship between the economy, environment and human health encompassed by agbioscience.”

Continued funding for research and Extension at Land Grant universities is critical for the future, says Simon Tripp, lead author of the study . “These institutions should be considered priorities for further strategic investment and development given their importance in realizing the intrinsic growth potential of agbiosciences for the U.S. and regional economies.”

The report concludes by noting that agbiosciences represent an opportunity for the United States to expand on U.S. leadership in a bio-based, sustainable resource-driven economy with wide ranging innovation and technology-based development opportunities. The full report is available online.

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

Under the agreement, still not passed by Congress, a 12-person bipartisan group from both the House and Senate will decide by next Thanksgiving how cuts to agricultural spending will be made.

A package put together by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would have trimmed agricultural spending by $11 billion over 10 years by targeting direct payments (which now cost about $5 billion a year).

“There are no farm bill cuts, unlike the Reid Package, so that $11 billion deal is done,” says Ferd Hoefner of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, one of several groups fighting to maintain conservation program spending.

But that’s not necessarily good news, Hoefner says. Larger cuts have been considered already this year—more than $30 billion over 10 years by the negotiations led by Vice President Joe Biden, and $48 billion in cuts in the House Budget put together by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI).

So it’s possible that the new 12-member group of congressional leaders will opt for larger cuts later this year, Hoefner said.

And the process is likely to take power away from House and Senate agriculture committees, he said.

“If the commission decides there will be $30 billion in cuts, then, in essence, the commission will be writing the farm bill,” Hoefner said. “Something in the good government side of lme says the committees of jurisdiction should have the chance to decide how the cuts will be made.”

Because the debt deal doesn’t raise revenue, the 45 cent-a-gallon tax credit for ethanol survives for now.

But that’s not good news, either, to lobbyists working on behalf of the industry. They were hoping that an idea supported by Senators John Thune (R-SD), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) would have been part of the debt deal. Thune and Klobuchar wanted to apply part of the savings from ending the tax credit early to pay down the federal debt, with a portion left to support blender pumps that can dispense higher levels of ethanol in gasoline.

“It is unfortunate that the debt deal reached this weekend did not include the Thune-Klobuchar-Feinstein Ethanol Reform Agreement, which would have saved American taxpayers $1.3 billion this year and strengthened our nation’s energy future by investing in next generation ethanol and infrastructure to benefit consumers at the pump,” says Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis. “We will continue to advocate for passage of this compromise wherever we can, whether in the debt deal or any other legislative vehicle.”

Adds Matt Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Association, “the current deal to raise the debt limit does not include any revenue raising measures, including the compromise to reform ethanol tax policy. As this deal calls for a commission and a future budget framework, the possibility still exists for a more comprehensive dialogue about energy tax policy, including how to assure the continued evolution of the ethanol industry to new feedstocks and technologies, how to assure needed investments in vehicles and infrastructure to accommodate higher ethanol blends, and how to end the billions in subsidies and tax preferences still enjoyed by very mature and profitable petroleum fuels. With the debt ceiling crisis looking as though it has been averted for now, we hope Congress and the Administration are now prepared to address the nation's worsening energy crisis, as oil and gasoline prices continue to rise and the nation's investment in home grown renewable fuels languishes.”

As painful as the debt ceiling debate has been, it likely won’t be the last round of negotiations over the federal debt, added Jon Doggett, the head Washington lobbyist for the National Corn Growers Association.

The $2.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years in the current debt deal only slows growth in the deficit, he said, and falls far short of eliminating it.

“We’ll be back at this again and again,” Doggett said.

And the precedent has been set of holding the debt ceiling hostage in Congress, he added.

“I could see either the Democrats or the Republicans, the right or the left, using this in the future,” he said.

Doggett said the members of the Corn Growers didn’t seem too upset when he sent out a message last week that Reid’s deficit cutting proposal would have cut direct payments by 30% (by making payments on 59% of base acres instead of 85%). They were more worried about crop insurance, he said.

Doggett said he’s not certain how the new committee on deficit reduction will affect the farm bill and ag programs. It’s possible that ag committees may have input into the process, or they may be given spending amounts to work with.

“That will be one thing all of agriculture will be very interested in and supportive of -- making sure the ag committees will have input,” he said.

Source: Agriculture.com

A key issue in a farm’s profitability for 2011 will be to avoid running out of feed before this year’s new crop is available. The second part of this process is to consider how farms can take advantage of lower priced feed input options to meet the long term feed needs of the farm. This longer term outlook may be to purchase lower cost feed sources as they become available to buffer a smaller corn crop this fall, as we do not know the outcome of how this year’s late planted corn or the extended hot, dry periods during this summer will impact crop yields this fall. Any and all reductions in feed or forage production will need to be covered by other adjustments to manage the feed needs of your livestock herd. It is recommended that you consider starting the planning process for your feed and forage needs budget as early as possible to avoid being left short of the required feed needs for your livestock herd over the next 18 months. Shorter overall supplies and high demands on a domestic and international basis may support higher highs in commodity prices with more overall volatility in prices and supplies. Price risk management is a vital part of your farm’s overall management strategies. You may want to engage your farm’s feed and management team to build a plan of action to carry your farm through these fast moving and changing times.
 

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

Stockpiling bermudagrass or fescue for winter grazing and adding winter annuals to pastures can reduce feed costs, labor needs and improve soil fertility. Begin stockpiling bermudagrass by grazing or cutting the pasture to a height of 2 to 4 inches, says Dr. Fernandez. Then, apply 50 pounds to 60 pounds of nitrogen by mid-August and allow the pasture to grow ungrazed until October. This ensures sufficient growth for winter use.

Tall fescue can produce a great deal of forage in the fall, more than annual rye or small grains. And, that forage maintains its quality throughout the winter grazing period, says Dr. Fernandez.
Research conducted as part of the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program found a cost savings of $14 per cow on stockpiled fescue. To stockpile fescue, Dr. Fernandez advises clearing the old spring growth/summer residue by mid-August and fertilizing according to soil needs (usually about 50 pounds to 60 pounds of nitrogen per acre) in mid-September to take advantage of Fall rains. Begin grazing the stockpiled fescue in December.

Stockpiled forages last longer with strip or rotational grazing. With unrestricted grazing, cattle consume only about 35 percent of available forage as compared to 65 percent with strip grazing.
One way to encourage strip or rotational grazing is with an electric fence. Temporary electric fencing can be as simple as a single electrified wire on fiberglass poles and can keep cattle from all but a narrow strip of stockpiled forage. This also provides a more even distribution of manure and urine to replenish soil fertility.

As the forage is consumed, move the fencing for access to a fresh strip for grazing. Start grazing near the water source to minimize damage from trampling. “Because the forage is dormant, there is no need to exclude cattle from previously grazed strips,” says Dr. Fernandez.

While cattle are eating stockpiled forages, plant winter annuals such as winter wheat, annual ryegrass or other cereal grains on pastures just vacated. Allow cows to eat the pasture down to 2 inches just as the grass goes dormant or clip the pasture.

No-till winter annuals beginning as early as mid-to-late August until early to mid-October with the later beginning and ending dates applying to southern vs. northern Arkansas. Winter annuals can provide early spring grazing into early summer. Manage annual ryegrass carefully or its long growing season may reduce yields of warm season perennials, such as bermudagrass or Bahia grass.

Combining stockpiled forages with winter annuals should reduce winter feed costs and hay needs dramatically while improving cow performance. Dr. Fernandez warns that some winter annuals can provide so much quality nutrition that cows may actually come into the calving season with excessive body condition so their access to the pasture may have to be limited to prevent calving problems.

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

According to a news release, the project is financed by the EU and Poland, and will be launch in three countries: USA, Vietnam and South Korea. The campaign primarily targets distributors, wholesalers, importers, local manufacturing and processing establishments and industry associations.

The release points out that Europe is a well-known traditional producer of excellent beef and pork. “The breeding resulting from the restrictive requirements of EU directives and from the due care given to each and every element of the food chain make it possible to obtain high quality meat,” the report reads. “It is these two factors: traditional production process and good quality that make European meat so popular throughout the world.”

The campaign planners intend to focus on several points, including:

•Production based on the HACCP system, which is mandatory in the European Union.
•Product certification in international quality systems such as ISO, BRC, IFS, GlobalGAP, as well as food quality systems in Europe dedicated to the meat industry.
•Animal feeds, welfare and the impact of these factors on the flavor and technological parameters of meat.
•Properties of meat obtained through traditional breeding such as intramuscular fat content and control of technological defects.
•European culinary traditions based on pork and beef.
It will be interesting to see how these messages play with U.S. consumers, but it seems unlikely European meats, beef in particular, will offer serious competition to U.S. products, either here or in Asia. European production costs generally are higher than those in the United States. Throw in transportation and a poor Dollar-to-Euro exchange rate – one Euro currently buys $1.43 – and European meats are likely to sell at a significant premium. U.S. retail prices for domestic beef already are high enough to dampen demand and drive consumers to cheaper alternatives, and European beef likely will remain a niche product.

We cannot, however, become complacent in our belief that U.S. beef will forever retain its place at the peak of quality and value in international beef trade. The Europeans are promoting quality control, food safety and tradition, seeking to differentiate their meat products in global markets. We’ll need to continue doing the same, and back up our claims with documentation and assurances that promote consumer confidence, to retain our dominant position in the world marketplace.

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

“The environmental impact of U.S. beef production has been reduced by improved productivity,” said Judith Capper, assistant professor of dairy science at WSU. She spoke at the American Meat Science Association’s Reciprocal Meat Conference, hosted by Kansas State University June 19-22. “In 1977 it took five animals to produce the same amount of beef as four animals produced in 2007.”

“The majority of beef production’s environmental impact occurs on-farm,” Capper said of the farm-to feedlot-to-processing system.

She acknowledged that opportunities to further improve beef yield per animal may be limited. Through genetic, feeding and management improvements, the amount of beef an animal yielded in 2007 averaged 773 pounds, well above the 603-pound average in 1977. In addition, the average number of days for a beef animal to reach slaughter weight was 482 in 2007, down from 606 days in 1977.

Capper cited a recent study that showed that in 2007:

- 31 percent more beef was produced than in 1977;

- the number of beef animals was down 30 percent from the total in 1977;

- beef cattle consumed 19 percent less feed than they did in 1977;

- beef cattle consumed 14 percent less water than beef cattle consumed in 1977;

- beef cattle production used 34 percent less land than it used in 1977;

- beef cattle produced 20 percent less manure than in 1977;

- beef cattle produced 20 percent less methane than in 1977;

- beef cattle produced 11 percent less nitrous oxide than in 1977; and

- beef cattle production’s carbon footprint was 18 percent less than in 1977.

Overall, in 2007, the beef cattle industry had 18 percent less impact on the environment than it had in 1977 – and it produced more beef, Capper said.

She used the example of two vehicles – one of which is more fuel efficient than the other. However, by revealing that the less fuel efficient vehicle is a bus that can transport many more people per gallon of fuel than a small car that can transport two, it makes a person view challenges differently, she said.

“It’s essential to assess impact per unit of output rather than per unit of the production process,” she said.

When assessing which is better for the planet -- grass-fed, natural (production-enhancing technologies not used) or conventional (feedlot-finished), Capper said she does not advocate for any particular group. However, removing technology from beef production considerably increases animal numbers and increases resource use and greenhouse gas emissions if attempting to keep output the same.

“If all U.S. beef was grass-fed, it would increase land use by 53.1 million hectares, which is about 75 percent of the land area of Texas,” Capper said. “It would increase water use by 1,733 billion liters, which is equal to annual usage by 46.3 million U.S. households, and it would increase greenhouse gas emissions enough to equal annual emissions from 26.6 million U.S. cars.”

Capper said that incorrect data are sometimes used in newspaper and magazine articles which can lead to a bias in consumers’ food choices. She cited an example where studies that appeared in a major U.S. magazine referred to beef production but the data came from other countries where practices are not as efficient as in the United States. For example, in Brazil only 62 percent of beef cows produce a live calf, and cows are typically four years old at first calving.

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

Harper told Committee members that he has invested in genetics that have helped improve the quality and consistency of the calves produced on his operation. To capitalize on that investment - he retains ownership of his calves and feeds them in a commercial feedyard. He then can market those calves through U.S. Premium Beef, Certified Angus Beef and other programs that allow him to earn a premium for his cattle. Harper fears the GIPSA rule would force him to sell cattle for the same average price as everyone else - causing him to lose his investment in superior genetics.

Source: KNEB Radio

Meanwhile, a new technical review by USDA’s Food Safety Research Information Office summarizes 63 studies on the topic and illustrates, among other key points, that “use and misuse of antimicrobial drugs in food animal production and human medicine is the main factor accelerating antimicrobial resistance.” Animal agriculture groups such as the National Pork Producers Council and the American Veterinary Medical Association contend antibiotics are vital for the health and care of livestock and say critics’ claims that antibiotic use in livestock raises the risk of bacterial resistance in humans are not supported by science.

Source: Hoosier Ag Today

The issue of 4-H desensitizing kids to the plight of animals came to the fore this week when CNN’s Eatocracy ran a 5@5 feature with chef Kelly Liken on the topic of Five Reasons to Buy from Your Local 4-H. CNN said, “We quickly identified within the comments two distinct perceptions of the organization – which was originally set up by the United States Department of Agriculture to train the rural youth of America in hand-on skills like agriculture and raising animals. One was that 4-H promotes responsible animal husbandry and the cultivation of food resources in a responsible, ethical way and the other was that it serves to desensitize children to the suffering of animals.”

Here’s a sampling of the comments posted on CNN’s site following the story:

In cold blood

I don't and would never support the 4-H. This group helps desensitize youngsters into having no emotional attachment to animals raised for food. For those who say no one should have attachment to animals raised for food, I say "of course". This is how the meat industry stays in business. If children are raised to love all animals and not try to see them as products, they would not be interested in seeing them killed. "Listening to the auctioneer and seeing how excited the children get when their animal is purchased is an incredibly fulfilling experience."

Really? Incredibly fulfilling experience. You mean knowing the animal that trusted you from birth is off to be mistreated before being slaughtered! That's fulfilling? Maybe that's because the 4-H has successfully desensitized these children who may have once be appalled by this. It's simply horrific. Shame on you 4-H for what you do to animals and to children. - Heather King

Education, not desensitization

What 4-H does do is promote responsible animal husbandry and the cultivation of food resources in a responsible, ethical way. I accept your position that any killing of animals for food is, in your position, not ethical or moral, however most of us are omnivores and I for one would rather that those producing the meat I choose to eat do so in a humane and ethical way. I respect your position, but I would also hope that you would rather see people brought up to understand, and therefore demand, that there an ethical way to treat an animal even if that animal's eventual purpose is the nourishment of a human being.

Desensitization is the wrong word–education is the right word. These kids (I was one) are not at all desensitized to the process–rather, they are educated about proper raising and care of these animals. Not only was I a member, but growing up we also purchased meat and produce from 4H and FFA members–talk about locally sourced! We could be confident in the quality, origin, and raising of these products in a way we can rarely be in a supermarket. - Value rather than desensitization

A lasting impact

Have you ever been at a 4-H auction? Most of the younger kids end up crying after their animal gets bought and not donated back. As they grow older, they wrap their head around the idea, but when they're first starting out they have a hard time accepting it. It doesn't mean they're "desensitized" to it, it's the fact they they've matured and understand that animal's purpose more as time goes on. - Brianna

The circle of life

Someone asked earlier in the thread how many 4-H kids had actually seen an animal slaughtered. In my club back home (rural Sierra Nevadas), the answer was ALL OF US. We toured the packing houses where our animals would later be slaughtered (note packing HOUSES, as these buildings housed perhaps thirty head at an outside estimate, nowhere near large enough to call a "processing plant"), examined carcasses, viewed the taking of animals lives and the bloodletting afterwards, and were given briefings on the saws and tools used. This while spending hours a day bathing, training, feeding and cleaning up after our own still very alive animals. - 4-H fo'sho'

The value of life

It is really so unevolved. Why are people proud that the kids are crying as they lead their animals onto the trailer to be killed for food? You are teaching them that relationships are disposable. That animals are disposable. NOT A GOOD LESSON, and these poor animals raised as pets are off to the slaughterhouse where they will be tortured before they die. - Kathy

It keeps them off the streets

Small scale food-animal raisers aren't cold blooded killers, they're making money doing what they enjoy doing. If anyone is desensitized to animal life, go to Youngstown [ed: where the commenter grew up] and talk to all the thugs on the street that grew up around murders happening weekly. THEN you'll find someone who doesn't value human or animal life.

If I have kids, you bet they'll be in 4-H. I'd rather see them doing that than doing what most of the people I grew up with did. Kids deserve more of a chance than what drugs, crime and partying can offer them. - Brianna

The divide between agriculture and the rest of society continues to widen. Increasingly few Americans have any ties to a farm or rural life, and as those ties were lost, so was the recognition by many that food comes from some place other than a grocery store. In many respects, it’s understandable that some in our modern society are uncomfortable with the facts of food animal production. More distressing, however, is that many are convinced those animals are “tortured” prior to slaughter.

That’s evidence that the handful of well-publicized incidents of animal abuse have done significant damage to the image of our industry. Repairing the damage done by a few demands constant vigilance on the part of every stakeholder – including our junior members in 4-H and FFA.

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

Cattle feedlot placements, an indication of future beef supplies, may drop as much as 20 percent this month compared with June 2010, Turner said, citing an industry source. Turner, a risk management consultant with INTL FCStone, spoke June 16 at his company’s annual market outlook conference in Chicago.

For much of the past year, high cattle prices fueled beef producers’ profit and contributed to rising feedlot placements since last summer. But that trend may reverse, Turner said. Cattle prices have tumbled from record highs in April while corn soared to all-time highs near $8 a bushel, sending feedlot margins into the red.

“The business of feeding cattle is not good,” Turner said. Based on futures prices, many feedlots are currently losing about $100 per animal, he said. As recently as the beginning of May, cattle feeders were making more than $137 a head, according to Sterling Marketing, Inc.

In trading June 16, CME Group live cattle futures for delivery this month rose 3 cents to $1.072 a pound. While the market has recovered part of its recent slide, futures are still down 13 percent from an all-time high of $1.22875 April 5.

Severe drought in the Southern Plains also contributed to rising placements, Turner said, as ranchers, lacking sufficient pasture for grazing, sold young cattle to feedlots earlier than normal. But the numbers of young animals from drought areas appears about tapped out, he said.

There are indications “that the drought-affected cattle have moved” to feedlots, Turner said in an interview following his presentation. “The feeder cattle supply is going to be hard to come by for the next year.”

During April, about 1.8 million head of cattle were sent to feedlots, up 10 percent from the same month in 2010, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That was the eighth year-over-year increase in the previous nine months.

The USDA is scheduled to release its monthly feedlot update for May at 2 p.m. Central time June 17. Feedlot placements during May are expected to have fallen about 7.5 percent from a year earlier, according to a Dow Jones Newswires survey of analysts.

Declining feedlot numbers likely will lead to tighter beef supplies, Turner said, pushing supermarket prices for steaks, burgers and other cuts even higher, assuming the economy improves.

U.S. retail beef prices rose by an average of 10 percent a month this year through May, compared with the same month in 2010, according to Labor Department data.

“If we do have some demand come back into the marketplace, prices are going to explode” higher, Turner said. However, beef demand appears to have weakened recently amid expensive gasoline and high unemployment, he added.

“No doubt, at $4 gasoline, there’s less disposable income,” Turner said.

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

The school is sponsored by the Pennsylvania Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Capital Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Area Council Inc.

It will begin with an evening pasture walk at the Ketterer Farm in Newville on June 24. The June 25 schedule includes classroom and field sessions on topics such as mob grazing, stockpiling, fencing installation and watering systems as well as pasture soil quality at the Cumberland County Service Center in Carlisle and Emerald Valley Farm in Newville. Local producers and technical advisers will share their personal knowledge and experience during interactive sessions with participants.

“This training will help our local farmers learn from their peers as well as provide some great tools for landowners to use in their grazing systems,” says Titus Martin, GLCI board member and grazing adviser for the Grassroots program, sponsored by the Capital RC&D Council. That program aims to improve the economics and environmental quality of livestock operations by promoting beneficial practices as part of a grass-based system.

The cost is $10 and includes all materials (textbooks, printed materials and grazing tools) and a catered lunch Saturday. For more information, contact Dan Ludwig, NRCS, at 717-274-2597, ext. 119, or Mark Muir, GLCI, at 814-676-2832. Registration information is also on the Pennsylvania GLCI Web site at http://www.paglci.org/4701.html.

Source: Hay & Forage Grower

Read more

Precision feeding is a significant factor of growing importance in the Bay clean up, says Virginia Ishler, Penn State Extension dairy nutrient management specialist. The Chesapeake Bay Commission estimates that nitrogen and phosphorus losses in manure can be reduced up to 50%.

Ration changes developed for the precision dairy feed management program seem to confirm it. That's why Penn State Extension educators are taking the next step – to help beef nutritionists and producers refine the art of feed management for feedlot and pasture operations.

Preparations are already ramping up, beginning with a June 21 workshop. Eight to 10 beef farms in the state already are developing feed management plans, notes Ishler.

At this point, plan development under the Natural Resources Conservation Service is voluntary. Poultry and swine programs are under consideration. Sooner or later, more than CAFO-sized operations will be affected.

"A lot depends on the watershed implementation plans that get finalized," explains Ishler. "Eventually [no one knows when], feed management will be a mandatory part of a certified nutrient management plan."

Due to rising feed costs, producer interest has exploded this year. "Certified nutritionists are bringing ration protein and phosphorus closer to requirements," points out the nutritionist. "That has to help on feed costs.

"We still have to wait to see how it affects performance. But we know many people are already doing this with positive results."
Details on the feed management workshop

The first Beef Feed Management Certification Workshop to certify animal nutritionists is set for June 21. The Keystone State will be the first in the country to have certified beef feed management plans, notes Ishler.

Incentive payments for developing beef feed management plans are available through NRCS's Environmental Quality Incentive Payment (EQIP) or Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI) programs. Local NRCS offices have the details.

"With the explosion of feed-management contracts this year, a number of beef operations have already signed up," she adds. "We worked with the American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists to complete the exam questions."

The workshop, to be held at the Masonic Village Farm, 1 Masonic Drive, Elizabethtown, Pa., runs from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. It's open to beef producers and ag professionals, including NRCS plan writers and anyone who has taken the ARPAS exam.

The program leads off with important ration formulation information aimed at feed analysis and reducing N and P content in manure. Then attendees will tour the Masonic Village's beef farm and Nissley Brothers' beef operation. The beef ARPAS exam will close out the session after lunch.

Interested attendees are urged to register before June 14. There's a $30 registration fee. For details and registration info, go to http://www.das.psu.edu/dairy-alliance/nm/beef-feed-management-certification-workshop. Contact Ishler at (814) 863-3912 or email her at vai1@psu.edu.

Source: American Agriculturalist
 

In reality, animal health issues impacted by biosecurity are very important. For example, consider the impact of hairy heel warts on the dairy industry. Hairy heel warts are infectious foot lesions that cause lameness in cattle. The infectious agent that causes heel warts is transferred from farm to farm by the movement of infected animals or equipment and people in contact with an infected farm. Preventing the spread of heel warts is a matter of biosecurity. The 1996 NAHMS dairy study suggested that more than 17% of the dairy cattle in the U.S. were infected with heel warts. At the same time, it has been estimated that each case of heel warts costs $88 to treat and each lame animal loses 2.4 pounds of milk production for each day of lameness. Do the math and it becomes apparent that there are millions of dollars lost annually because of inadequate biosecurity practices. How would things have turned out differently if we had been using more stringent biosecurity practices since the 1970’s when heel warts first emerged in the U.S.? While the fight against heel warts goes on, the next emerging disease in the U.S. may cost even more in the long run if we cannot bring biosecurity issues under control. Developing biosecurity habits to reduce the risk from many animal disease problems are habits worth creating.

Good biosecurity programs focus on a number of management controls for visitors to the farm representing a major biosecurity risk for all livestock operations. The difficulty with addressing potential risks from visitors is that biosecurity tends to be subject to personal interpretation by both farm visitors and farm management. In the end, human nature usually wins out, and in most cases each party tacitly decides that unless one side or the other makes a point of it, everyone can agree biosecurity wasn’t that important that day. It is as important for farm owners to expect visitors to the farm to abide by the biosecurity protocols put in place by the farm, as it is for farm visitors to plan for biosecurity protocols on every farm they may visit. Expectations for visitors can be tactfully and specifically spelled out in a visitor policy

For the farm owner or manager, biosecurity risk is about who the visitor is. Ohio State University Extension’s factsheet On-Farm Biosecurity: Traffic Control and Sanitation by Extension veterinarians, Drs. Gary Bowman and William Shulaw breaks visitor risk into three basic classifications: High, Medium and Low risk.

•Low risk visitors, would include those who in general have little or no contact with livestock and as such, present very little risk of transferring diseases to the farm.
•Medium risk visitors include those who routinely visit farms but have little or no contact with animals. People such as salesmen, delivery people and mechanical contractors.
•High risk visitors would include veterinarians, livestock haulers, livestock-owning neighbors or employees, and anyone else who has close contact with animals and their bodily discharges.
Farm entry precautions therefore, could be on an increasing scale, beginning with low risk visitors and growing as the potential risk grows. In other words, because the high risk visitors represent a greater threat to the farm business, their entry precautions and biosecurity protocols should be much more stringent than the low risk visitor. For example, Drs. Bowman and Shulaw suggest the precautions low risk visitors should include:

•Ask visitors to wear freshly laundered outerwear and clean shoes or boots. You should provide disposable plastic boots and coveralls as an added precaution.
•Do not rely heavily on disinfectant footbaths. They are unreliable unless boots are thoroughly scrubbed before immersion. And the disinfectant properties are only valid if the boots are in the disinfectant for adequate contact time. Contact time required varies by product.
•Do not allow visitors to enter pens or feeding areas or to contact animals, if possible.
•Do not allow visitors to bring food with them.
•When visitors leave, provide a plastic bag for disposable items and ask them to wash their hands before leaving.
The medium risk visitor’s greater contact with off farm livestock creates a greater potential risk of disease transfer to the farm. Drs. Bowman and Shulaw indicate that the precautions for medium risk visitors should begin with those of the low risk visitor and also include:

•Wear clean or disposable coveralls and boots if there is any contact with feed, animals, soil, or manure.
•Equipment should be cleaned and disinfected before coming to the farm and before leaving if there is any contact with feed, animals, soil, or manure.
•Dirty boots should be THOROUGHLY cleaned and disinfected, and coveralls should be removed and placed in a plastic bag or other container before the visitors reenter the vehicle to prevent the transfer of pathogens to other farms.
The high risk visitor group includes some of the most important management consultants and technicians who regularly visit the farm. They also represent a much higher risk of contamination. Consequently, the high risk visitor has the greatest responsibility for reducing or deflecting the risks associated with their visits. The Ohio State University Extension Factsheet specifies that the precautions for high risk visitors begin with those used by the low and medium risk groups and should also include:

•Vehicles should be clean and free of visible manure on tires and wheel wells. Livestock trucks and trailers should be cleaned and disinfected prior to arriving at the farm.
•Visitors should arrive with clean clothing, boots and equipment. Equipment and instruments that have direct animal contact should be cleaned and disinfected before and after visiting the farm.
•Disposable sleeves and gloves and other disposable or disinfectable clothing should be worn whenever there is direct contact with animal discharges or tissues.
•Clean and disinfect dirty equipment and footwear with an appropriate disinfectant before leaving the farm. To prevent contaminating transport vehicles, soiled coveralls should be removed and bagged before people reenter the vehicle. Hands and forearms should be washed with antibacterial soap
•Farm employees who have livestock at their own home should report to work clean and in clean clothes that have not been exposed to their own livestock. They could provide their own clean coveralls.
(Note that in several instances Drs. Bowman and Shulaw point to the use of disinfectants. More information on the cleaning and disinfection and the selection of disinfectants can be found in the Michigan State University Extension Bulletin: Biosecurity Guide for Livestock Farm Visits (E-2842) by Dr. Daniel Grooms D.V.M.)

In addition to the others already mentioned, there are two precautions that should be exercised for all visitors to livestock farms. First, all visitors should be screened prior to entry to determine if they have visited another country with the last 7 days. This precaution is part of a visitor’s policy to exclude people who have recently visited countries outside the U.S. where foreign animal diseases such as Foot and Mouth Disease are present.

The second precaution is the companion piece to the visitor’s policy, the visitor’s log. Every person who visits a farm should be required to “sign in” to indicate that they were present on the farm that day. The visitor’s log is intended to provide the farm owner a record, should it be needed, of farm visitors for forensic use if there is ever a large scale animal disease outbreak. It is also useful in determining the numbers of visitors and the basis of risk they represent. The log points to the human links between farms during a disease outbreak and can play a role in determining how long a farm is quarantined.

Biosecurity precautions on livestock operations can play a significant role in the health and wellbeing of both the farm animals and the farm business. Their use on farms will have long term impacts. More information on farm gate biosecurity can be found at the website of Michigan’s Biosecurity Stop Sign Campaign.

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

The Pennsylvania Beef Council partnered with Marcho Farms, Franconia, Pa., and the beef checkoff to host an educational farm tour on Thursday, April 28. Sixteen students and a chef instructor from the Philadelphia Art Institute’s culinary program attended the one-day event, gaining a first-hand look at the veal industry, from farm gate to dinner plate.

  The tour kicked off at the Marcho Farms barn where Dr. Adnan Aydin, Director of Research and Nutrition, explained how each veal calf is carefully raised on select formula milk replacer. “We supervise 100 percent of the growing process and take every measure to ensure our calves are properly cared for,” said Aydin. “We’re committed to producing a quality end product for consumers.”  

Marcho Farms’ commitment is particularly demonstrated by their investment in group housing, where special flooring material and design provide the calves with a comfortable and clean environment. Following the barn tour, students were transported to Marcho Farms headquarters located just a few miles from the farm.  

Today, Marcho Farms processes more than 2,000 veal calves per week. The students were led on a walking tour of Marcho’s fabrication and slaughter facilities where they learned about the quality assurance measures implemented during processing, from machine handling and sanitization to shipping and sales.  

The day ended with an in-depth panel discussion and Q&A session hosted by industry experts including Wayne Marcho; Dr. Aydin; Daryl Bernhard, Marcho Farms; Dean Conklin, director of the checkoff’s veal program; Beth Ann Mumford, American Veal Association and Paul Slayton, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Beef Council.   Topics included veal nutrition, issues management and quality assurance. Wayne Marcho also spoke to the students about his company’s commitment to excellence.

“You can’t change the quality of the calf in the plant,” Marcho commented. He explained the root of their success saying, “We start with quality on the farm and the feed we produce. We care about our company and we care about our consumers.”  

As one of the nation’s leaders in veal production, Pennsylvania was well-positioned to provide future chefs and foodservice professionals with an up-close look at all aspects of the modern veal industry.  

For more information, contact the PA Beef Council at 1-888-4BEEFPA(423-3372) or www.pabeef.org. To learn more about America’s veal farmers, visit www.vearlfarm.com or for veal recipes, visit www.vealmadeeasy.com.   For more information about your beef checkoff, visit MyBeefCheckoff.com.  Media Contact: Kristi Rooker, 412-691-0262; krooker@pabeef.org

NCBA President Bill Donald said the United States cannot afford to wait any longer to implement the trade pacts.

“Each day that goes by without implementing these agreements is another day we risk losing American jobs by losing market share to other countries. With 96 percent of the world’s consumers living outside of the United States, future growth of the U.S. economy depends upon our ability to produce and sell products competitively in the global marketplace,” said Donald.

“Economic globalization is not simply a matter of ideological or political preference; it is a fundamental reality that will determine whether America remains an economic superpower or a secondary economic force.”

According to Donald, all cuts of U.S. beef exported to Korea are hit with a 40 percent tariff, resulting in more than $200 million in tariffs in 2010. The Korea, U.S. trade agreement would phase out South Korea’s 40 percent tariff on beef imports, with $15 million in tariff benefits for beef in the first year of the agreement alone and about $325 million in tariff reductions annually once fully implemented.

Donald said Colombia places up to an 80 percent tariff on U.S. beef imports, making it one of the highest tariffs U.S. beef faces anywhere in the world. Once the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is implemented, this agreement immediately provides duty-free access for high quality U.S. beef and reduces tariffs on all other beef and beef products over 15 years.

Similarly, he said the Panama Free Trade Agreement would eliminate the 30 percent tariff on prime and choice cuts and duties on all other cuts would be phased out over 15 years.

“If Congress approves these agreements, the United States will ultimately have free trade for U.S. beef with approximately two-thirds of the population in the Western Hemisphere,” said Donald.

“I support President Obama’s effort to double U.S. exports and create jobs in rural America. Without question, exports create jobs. NCBA and supporters of free trade have worked hard in support of these agreements and we are ready to move them across the finish line.”
 

Source:Southwest Farm Press

Our nation’s abundant natural resources and free market economy have made it possible for the US to be food self-sufficient. Never in our history have we had to depend on another nation to provide our food. The concept of not being able to produce enough food to feed ourselves is a concept inconceivable to most Americans. When we think of nations that cannot feed themselves, we usually think of poor developing nations in Africa or parts of Asia. Thus, it may come as a surprise that there are modern industrialized nations who cannot feed themselves. They are not starving because they have the wealth to buy what they need from the world market. Yet the fact remains, they are not capable of feeding themselves.

Great Britain is one such country. Once an exporter of food to the world, the British have lost the ability to produce enough food to feed their nation. Irresponsible social policies and eco-phobic environmental regulations have devastated their once proud livestock and grain industries. I found it ironic that, last week, Prince Charles was here in the US promoting his brand of agricultural sustainability while back home his nation was living off the world’s food dole.

Some of those very oil rich nations in the Middle East exist in a food desert as well as a geological one. Last year, when a third of the Russian wheat crop was burned up in a drought and the Soviets cut off exports, food riots broke out in many of these nations who export $100 a barrel oil but cannot feed themselves. Most of the time these nations can buy what they need on the world market, but one natural disaster can change things very quickly.

We are currently seeing this same thing occur in the electronic and automotive industries. The massive earthquake in Japan has caused a major disruption in supplies of cars from Japan. Toyota, Lexus, and Honda have said plants in Japan and the US are working at 50% capacity at best; and GM has said it will close more US plants temporarily, as it deals with short supply of parts. Electronics shoppers, on the other hand, will just have to be patient. Sony pushed the launch of its $1,500 3D camcorder to mid-May from what was supposed to be mid-April. US prices on a variety of electronics have skyrocketed in the past few weeks. At a Best Buy store in Ft. Wayne, IN, the shelf price on the new Canon T3i camera jumped $150 overnight. Even web retailers like Amazon.com are facing inventory shortages of electronics from Japan.

What if the US was as dependent on food imports as we are on cars and electronics? There are people and policies in play today that could lead to that eventuality. Burdensome regulations from the EPA, bans on drugs used in animal care by the FDA, and the wanton development of prime farmland are all things that may drive US production agriculture to other places. Only if we take the preservation of our food production system seriously do we stand a chance of maintaining our food security. Most consumers and, unfortunately, most policy makers take agriculture for granted. That is why our food production system is in danger. Let us keep reminding them that national food security is just as important as homeland security.

Source: Hosier Ag Today
 

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, New York Sen. Charles Schumer, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nev., have asked the Federal Trade Commission to review allegations of potential wrongdoing by oil companies and refiners. The price-fixing probe is further pressure on the big oil companies that Democrats have portrayed as out of touch with consumers and not worthy of billions of dollars of federal tax breaks.

“If true, this behavior is a direct affront to the American people who are still struggling with the economic downturn,” the Senators said in a letter to FTC. Last week oil executives were grilled by a Senate committee over why an industry with $35 billion in annual profits in the first quarter deserves a $4 billion federal subsidy.

Senators seeking the investigation cite recent Energy Department data showing that U.S. refiners are operating only at 82 percent capacity. “Why are they producing less gasoline for the American consumer?” asked McCaskill. “Maybe it’s because they decided to reduce supply in order to increase price.”

Oil prices fell again on Tuesday, declining more than 1 percent as weak economic data fueled concerns about demand. Oil has declined 15 percent so far during May. Brent crude for July delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange closed yesterday at $109.24 per barrel, down $1.60. Crude for June delivery closed at $96.07 per barrel.

Refiners call their gasoline profit margin the “crack spread,” and that margin retreated about $3 yesterday to slightly more than $26 per barrel. The crack spread had been above $40 per barrel on May 10. Last week wholesale margins for gasoline sold in the Midwest were more than $1.20 per gallon.

U.S. gasoline prices averaged $3.97 last week, down a penny from the previous week, but $1.06 per gallon higher (38 percent) than the same week a year ago.

The Energy Information Administration said last week demand for gasoline had fallen 2.9 percent in the last month, while refineries were using only 81.7 percent of their capacity. Refineries are also exporting more gasoline, especially to Mexico and Latin America. In February the U.S. exported 400,000 barrels of gasoline per day.

Senator Schumer said it does not make sense for refiners to have low production levels and also export record amounts of gasoline when U.S. prices are high.

“Sounds like a recipe to keep prices high. We don’t know if this is a smoking gun but it sure requires a close look,” he said.

While refineries are operating at lower capacity levels, U.S. gasoline inventories remain high, rising almost 1.3 million barrels to about 206 million barrels, the EIA says.

Gasoline prices fell this week for the first time in eight weeks, and industry analysts say they expect retail gasoline to fall “significantly” over the next few weeks.

Region 7's latest round of CAFO enforcement activity, aimed at encouraging producers' compliance with the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program, involves seven beef feedlots, including four in Iowa, two in Kansas and one in Nebraska.

"Feedlot-related pollutants have significantly contributed to water quality problems, causing states to list streams as impaired under the Clean Water Act," EPA Regional Administrator Karl Brooks said. "As Clean Water Act permits provide a crucial tool to maintain water quality, EPA works with our state partners and stakeholders to promote producers' legal compliance. Enforcing feedlot permits and requiring producers to get them, where appropriate, will produce cleaner waters and likely require fewer enforcement actions in the future."

Wastewater discharges and runoff from CAFOs and lands where those operations store or apply manure and wastes can cause exceedances of water quality standards, pose risks to human health, threaten aquatic life and its habitat, and impair the use and enjoyment of waterways.

Violations noted in the seven separate administrative compliance orders include wastewater discharges by unpermitted medium and large CAFOs, discharges by a large CAFO in violation of its NPDES permit, failures to maintain adequate storage capacity for wastes, and a large CAFO's failure to adequately track its land application activities to ensure that area surface waters are protected:

Crossroads Cattle Co., Woodbine, Iowa - An inspection and review of the NPDES-permitted open beef feedlot identified failures to maintain adequate storage capacity in its lagoons, and confinement of cattle in areas lacking adequate controls to prevent unauthorized discharges. The order requires the operation to cease use of areas with inadequate controls and ensure wastewater levels in retention structures are in compliance with its NPDES permit. Discharges from the feedlot flow to a tributary of the Boyer River in Harrison County. The feedlot has a permitted capacity of 5,500 cattle and was confining approximately 3,200 to 3,500 cattle at the time of the inspection.

Feedlot Services Company, Neola, Iowa - Inspection found the unpermitted operation was confining 809 beef cattle in an open feedlot that discharges into Keg Creek in Pottawattamie County. The order requires the operation, which has a confinement capacity of 999 cattle, to cease unauthorized discharges or apply for an NPDES permit within 90 days and construct controls before September 30, 2012.

Harlan Northrup, d/b/a Harlan Northrup Feedlot, Griswold, Iowa - Inspection found the unpermitted operation was confining approximately 350 beef cattle in an open feedlot that discharges into a federally recognized wetland and a tributary of Boughman's Creek in Cass County. The order requires the operation, which has a confinement capacity of 800 cattle, to cease unauthorized discharges or apply for an NPDES permit within 90 days and construct controls before September 30, 2012.

Petersen-Bubke LLP, Mapleton, Iowa - Inspection found the unpermitted operation was confining 1,050 beef cattle in an open feedlot that discharges into Rush Creek in Monona County. The order requires the operation to cease unauthorized discharges or apply for an NPDES permit within 90 days and construct controls before September 30, 2012.

KM Feeders, Lyons, Kan. - Inspection and file review of the NPDES-permitted feedlot found failures to maintain adequate storage capacity in its lagoons. The order requires the operation to ensure wastewater levels in retention structures are in compliance with its NPDES permit, and provide monthly reports to EPA. Discharges from the feedlot would flow to Dry Creek, which is officially listed by EPA and the State of Kansas as an impaired water because of phosphorous and total suspended solids levels. The feedlot has a permitted capacity of 5,200 cattle and was confining at capacity at the time of the inspection.

McPherson County Feeders, Marquette, Kan. - Inspection and file review of the NPDES-permitted feedlot found failures to maintain adequate storage capacity in its lagoons. The order requires the operation to ensure wastewater levels in retention structures are in compliance with its NPDES permit, install legible staff gauges in its retention structures, and provide monthly reports to EPA. Discharges from the feedlot would flow into Sharps Creek in McPherson County. Sharps Creek is officially listed by EPA and the State of Kansas as an impaired water because of E. coli and total suspended solid levels. The feedlot has a permitted capacity of 13,000 cattle and was confining approximately 8,506 cattle at the time of the inspection.

Knox County Feeders, Bloomfield, Neb. - As part of a compliance evaluation, EPA determined that the open beef feedlot had failed to sample its manure, process wastewater and land application areas as required by the terms of its Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) and its NPDES permit, and was unable to provide adequate records associated with its land applications. Those failures made it impossible to determine application rates for manure disposal, putting nearby surface water at the risk of potentially harmful discharges. The order requires the operation to update its NMP and meet all sampling and recordkeeping requirements of the NMP and NPDES permit. The feedlot has a permitted capacity of 5,000 cattle.

For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/index.html.

SOURCE: Environmental Protection Agency

Count U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack among those who believe the Birds Point levee should be rebuilt. Last week Vilsack sent a letter to Secretary of the Army John McHugh urging him to commit to rebuilding the levee in Missouri as soon as conditions allow.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers used dynamite to blast open the levee in three locations on May 2 to relieve flooding in Cairo, IL. As a result, about 200 square miles of fertile farmland was flooded, and more than 200 people were forced to evacuate approximately 90 homes. The flooding also presumably discharged stored agricultural chemicals, petroleum products and LP-propane gas into the environment.

As yet, McHugh and the Army Corps of Engineers has not committed to rebuilding the levee. In the letter, Vilsack asked the Corps of Engineers to make a public commitment, saying, “The more quickly the levee can be rebuilt, the sooner our farmers can ranchers can be back in their homes, back in their fields and back on their feet.”

Rebuilding the levee, however, will not happen without opposition. Last week three Southern Illinois University professors wrote to President Obama urging that the levees not be rebuilt, and that the area be “left open to the river and allowed to be inundated regularly.”

That idea swiftly met criticism from Missouri Farm Bureau president Blake Hurst, who believes the new wetland created by such a decision would result in a giant mosquito hatchery. “It’s imperative that we drown this foolish idea in its infancy. The levees must be repaired as soon as it dries enough for dirt to be moved.”

The intentional breach of the Birds Point levee has quickly become a controversial issue, drawing comments from national politicians. Last week Vice President Joe Biden visited St. Louis touring destruction left by last month’s storms. He praised the Corps of Engineers’ decision to breach the levee.

“As bad as it is, and it is bad, it is evidence that the Corps of Engineers has come up with a method along the Mississippi to be able to mitigate some of the significant damage that otherwise would have occurred,” Biden said. “It’s a hard thing, and it’s just evidence of the fact that there is a need for something larger.”

Those comments outraged U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, who represents Southeast Missouri where the Birds Point levee is located.

“I believe it was an ignorant comment in the literal meaning of the word,” Emerson said. “His comments were ignorant and uninformed. It shows a total lack of understanding.”

Rural Missourians are outraged about the Birds Point levee breach because it is estimated the agricultural economy lost $65 million due to the flooding. Emerson noted that, so far, there has been no public indication by Biden or the corps that the federal government will provide assistance to farmers and other residents for flood recovery.

In a news release, Emerson’s office says “there is no evidence to suggest that any reduction in Mississippi River flood stages at Birds Point last week will lead to a reduction in damage as the crest moves downstream.”

Officials say the breach did reduce river levels upstream. Before the breach, On May 2, the Ohio River at Cairo peaked at 61.72 feet, a record. The river was at 56.49 feet at 4 p.m. on May 12.

The United States has the world's fourth largest cattle population. More than 970,000 farms raise beef cattle, contributing to a $71 billion retail value. Yet, farmers and feedlot operators spend millions of dollars every year feeding some cattle that don't grow efficiently. Simultaneously, when cattle are brought together in feedlots, they can be exposed to Bovine Respiratory Disease, leading to significant economic losses and reduced animal well-being. Now, with the help of two grants totaling more than $14 million from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, research teams from the University of Missouri and Texas A&M University will combine their resources to battle these two problems.

"Currently, we have no highly effective tools to improve feed efficiency, which can lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and demand for additional land to produce feed," said Jerry Taylor, Wurdack Chair in Animal Genomics in the MU College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, and project director of a $5 million grant to study feed efficiency in cattle. "Historically, the only way we have improved the efficiency of cattle growth was by selectively breeding cattle that grew fast. While this reduced the time it took to bring an animal to market, it did not tackle the fundamental issue of improving the efficiency of converting nutrients from feed into beef. An animal that is efficient in converting nutrients into muscle will grow faster and emit less methane and manure in its lifetime, which also is beneficial for the environment."

With the new grants, Taylor and his colleagues will study the feed efficiency of cattle with several techniques, including using DNA-based models to predict genetic merit for feed efficiency. During the study, the researchers will genotype, or map the genes, of 8,000 cattle and identify how genetic differences affect feed intake and efficiency. The researchers also will identify the specific bacteria and microbes that reside in the animals' stomachs. These bacteria and microbes are a key factor in feed efficiency as they assist the animals in digesting the food.

"If we can identify and selectively breed the animals that have the best combination of genes for producing high-quality beef with the least amount of grain, their offspring could reduce environmental impacts and save producers millions of dollars," Taylor said. "Limiting the amount of feed used to produce beef could open farmland for other important crops, such as corn for ethanol, which could decrease dependency on fossil fuels and foreign oil."

The second grant, worth $9.2 million, will be led by James Womack, the W.P. Luse Endowed and Distinguished Professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M University. Taylor will assist Womack in the study that will investigate Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD), the most significant health problem of the U.S. beef and dairy industries. Cattle that are stricken with the disease typically stop eating, lose weight and require treatment, resulting in significant economic losses for farmers. Womack and his colleagues will identify the pathogens responsible for BRD and will use a DNA-based approach, which is similar to the approach being used in the feed efficiency study, to identify cattle that are resistant to the pathogens responsible for BRD. Selective breeding of resistant animals will lead to increased animal well-being and reduced production losses, the researchers said.

"These industries in the U.S. lose almost $700 million each year as a result of this complex disease," Womack said. "This includes more than 1 million animal deaths per year along with extensive sub-lethal illness and loss of productivity. The reduction of BRD will not only minimize economic losses, but also will improve animal health and welfare in these industries and reduce environmental and health risks associated with the use of antibiotics."

Both grants also have outreach and teaching components. A demonstration project involving several farms and commercial feedlots in the Midwest will evaluate the DNA diagnostics developed from the study to predict the feed efficiency of calves. Undergraduate, graduate and veterinary students will be involved in the research to learn about feed efficiency and disease resistance during the five-year projects. The research teams also will utilize cattle within industry feedlots for research and demonstration projects to show farmers' and feedlot producers how to implement procedures and practices that will improve feed efficiency and reduce the prevalence of BRD.

“Individuals, businesses and communities may be affected by the operations of this rapidly growing industry in the commonwealth,” said the publications’ lead author, Charles Abdalla, professor of agricultural and environmental economics. “Public policies for environmental protection will be improved if the affected parties — which include almost everyone — are well-informed about likely impacts and take advantage of opportunities to participate in decisions.”

Policy makers at the federal, multi-state, state and local levels have made regulatory decisions affecting shale gas exploration, with implications for water resources.

In most cases, these regulations originated with legislation, such as Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Act. However, government agency rule-making and court decisions also influence how gas drilling affects water resources and the environment.

Marcellus Shale Gas Well Drilling: Regulations to Protect Water Supplies in Pennsylvania, discusses the roles of the various levels of government, relevant sections of the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act, permit requirements, protection of drinking water quality and groundwater, methods for disposing of drilling fluids, and the role of river basin commissions, among other issues.

The limited options available for treatment and disposal of wastewater from this burgeoning industry have slowed the industry’s expansion. But in the past year or so, important state regulatory changes have been finalized, clearing the way for innovation to meet the challenges of treating Marcellus wastewater, which is very high in total dissolved solids.

Marcellus Shale Wastewater Issues in Pennsylvania — Current and Emerging Treatment and Disposal Technologies covers the volume of wastewater generated by the industry in Pennsylvania, the types and chemistries of Marcellus wastewater, additives used in hydrofracturing, the state’s new total dissolved solids standards, and the various options for wastewater treatment and disposal.

Abdalla said the publications are aimed at engaging residents, landowners, environmental organizations, economic development groups and others. “Now is the time for people to learn about and help shape public policies that will guide development of the Marcellus Shale,” Abdalla said. “These policies will play a large part in determining the economic well-being and quality of life for residents of the commonwealth for a long time — perhaps generations — to come.”

The publications are based upon work supported by the Pennsylvania Water Resources Research Center. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the publications are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the center.

Get one. These and other publications on water-related aspects of Marcellus Shale gas exploration are available online at http://www.extension.psu.edu/water/marcellus-shale.

Where you stand on an issue depends a lot on where you sit. And looking at “sustainability” from a feedyard manager’s chair can help shed a new and different perspective on the world and the industry’s place in it. 

At least that’s Tom McDonald’s perspective. And looking at a feedyard from his chair as vice president of environmental affairs for JBS Five Rivers Cattle Feeding, he says sustainable thinking not only encompasses much more than just the environmental aspect of cattle production, but it’s also essential for the feedyard’s long-term future. 

“Sustainability is the life of a business and that makes it fun. Sustainability is our future. These are the things that are going to write our paychecks going forward,” he says. 

Sustainable solutions to industry issues are designed to capture opportunities. “They’re collaborative. They make good business sense. That’s part of the definition because it’s not sustainable if it doesn’t make business sense,” McDonald says. 

Taking the “triple bottom line” concept of sustainability, which considers social equity, economic prosperity and environmental integrity, McDonald says to ask yourself these questions whenever you’re thinking about making a capital investment: 

• How is this going to impact the environment? How will it impact the air, the water, the land, your fossil fuel usage? 
• How does this affect animal well-being? Will it improve handling, nutrition, health? 
• How is this capital investment going to affect the human component? How will it affect your employees? 
• How will it affect the neighbors that are near the feedyard? 
• How will it affect returns? “It is a good thing, it is a sustainable thing, for you to be profitable. If it’s not profitable, it’s not sustainable,” explains McDonald. 

When thinking about sustainability as it relates to cattle feeding, McDonald said to think small and dream big. “I think we need to be looking for the little things. If you can get 2 mpg better fuel efficiency, that’s a win. If you can reduce your natural-gas use in the feedmill by 2%, that’s a win. If you can get a tenth-of-a-pound more gain out of your cattle, that’s a big win.” 

But don’t be afraid to look at the future with big dreams. “We’re not going to have those out-of-the-park homeruns come at us every day. But we better be thinking about them. We better be wracking our brains thinking ‘what can we do to make this business better?’”

The people who can help you find those answers are close by, he says. “Generally, when I think of sustainable solutions, they come from people closest to the business. If you will talk with your line-level employees, they will tell you ways that you can do business better. They’ve all got ideas because they know the business – they’re the ones out in it every day. If we will listen and if we will give them the power to make some of the changes, I think we will move our businesses ahead.” 

The Agriculture Department projects a record U.S. corn crop this year, but despite the expected increase in production, American Farm Bureau Federation economists emphasize that stocks are still tight and corn farmers will need strong yields to meet demand and build stocks to more comfortable levels.

USDA released its May World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates May 11, which pegs U.S. corn production at 13.5 billion bushels in 2011. If realized, this would be the largest U.S. crop ever, outdoing the record 13.1 billion bushel corn crop in 2009.

“It’s important to remember that this is a preliminary estimate from USDA. A lot can change from now until harvest, explained Todd Davis, AFBF crops economist. “We still don’t know the impact late planting in Corn Belt states east of the Mississippi will have on this year’s corn crop. We’re going to need a warm summer with timely rains to realize this 13.5 billion bushel corn crop.

USDA projects U.S. corn farmers will plant 92.2 million acres this year, 5 percent more than last year and 7 percent more than planted in 2009. If realized, this would be the second highest planted corn acreage in the United States since 1944, behind only the 93.5 million acres planted in 2007, according to USDA.

Davis notes that USDA projects an average yield of 158.7 bushels per acre in its May estimate for the 2011 corn crop, which would be slightly lower than the long-run trend of 162 bushels per acre and the 2009 record yield of 164.7 bushels per acre. “The lower yield estimate reflects this year’s later planted crop, Davis said.

USDA still sees a very tight supply situation for the 2011/2012 crop year. “For the corn crop harvested this fall, USDA projects a stocks-to-use ratio of 6.7 percent. This is a very tight supply, representing just 25 days of use, Davis said. “Because of tight stocks and strong demand, USDA projects high prices for this year’s harvest at $5.50 - $6.50 per bushel.

For a rundown on the latest USDA crop projections, see http://southeastfarmpress.com/grains/usda-projects-record-corn-crop.

The U.S. produce industry has “a moral and legal responsibility” to do what’s right for consumers, says a long-time leader in the food industry and a survivor of numerous product recalls during his career.

Gale Prince, President of SAGE, a food safety consulting firm, uses his decades of experience with Kroger and other companies to help prevent or limit damage from food product contamination. He was keynote speaker at the recent Texas Food Safety Conference in Austin.

Prince says the produce industry has been placed under a magnifying glass following numerous product recalls over the past few years. “We saw a 400 percent increase in recalls from 2007 to 2010,” he says.

Reasons for the increase include changes in consumer preferences, which now include combining different leafy vegetables in packaged salad products. Also, detection is much more accurate and contaminants may be identified down to “parts per trillion,” Prince says.

“Things that have never been a problem before are now.” Salmonella and allergen identifications have increased. “In 2010, 72 percent (of contamination issues) were related to Salmonella. Allergen incidents have tripled.”

He says 94 percent of produce recalls involve microbiological contaminants with more than 60 percent of those identified as Salmonella. “In the ‘60s, when I started my career, we found Salmonella in eggs. Now it’s common in many products.”

He says imports are a prime source of food contamination, particularly from produce, seeds and spices, among other products. Contaminated cantaloupe in mixed fruit is a common problem as is contamination in lettuce, sprouts and sliced apples.

Friday afternoon is the most likely time for a recall to be initiated, Prince says. “Friday is the busiest day in a supermarket. And it’s often difficult to get in touch with the people you need to talk to on Friday afternoon (following a recall notice). Most recalls occur after 2 p.m.”

Prince says a company must be prepared to deal with recalls on weekends. “Make certain the company’s recall manual is current. All the programs I review need work. Times are changing.”

He says a recall may necessitate a company CEO getting in touch with his lawyer, a micro-biologist or other specialist on short notice. The contact list should be handy and current. He says the protocol also should include a draft news release and customer information.

“It’s essential to notify customers who received the recalled product and also the ones who did not,” he says. “Maintain a list of all products and combinations along with a master list of all lot coding systems. Define the lot coding system and establish parameters to fit desired economic exposure.”

He says companies should test those parameters to make certain they will be sufficient. “Conduct traceability exercises,” he says.

Reasons for recalls include non-compliance with a company’s own standard operating procedures as well as with good agricultural practices. Failure to maintain food manufacturing facilities and equipment also leads to recalled products.

Other issues include weakness in Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), knowledge of the product and knowledge of the supply chain.

Contaminants run the gamut of items folks don’t want to see in their food. FDA citations from January, 2009, through September, 2010, included pests in food areas, sanitation problems in food preparation areas, faulty facility and equipment maintenance and cleaning and sanitation failures.

“Management must be committed to food safety,” Prince says. “You cannot delegate your responsibility to regulatory and customs inspections.”

He says recalls are extremely costly. Recent recalls cost companies from around $50 million to more than $100 million. “That does not include litigation, restoring the business, lost profit, lost jobs and damage to the brand,” he says.

Recent polls indicate some consumers will not buy certain products following a recall. Some will not buy the recalled product from the company that recalled it and some say they will never buy any product from that company again.

To avoid economic losses, produce companies must change with a changing demand and needs of consumers. Consumers want different products and many customers are older and more subject to illness, Prince says. Food borne illnesses are dangerous. Around 45 percent of Salmonella cases are hospitalized. For Listeria, hospitalization rate is above 90 percent with a 25 percent fatality rate.

DNA technology also makes identification of specific contaminants more reliable. “We can identify what part of the country a contaminant came from,” Prince says. With that information, investigators may track the product to its origin.

Better identification, he says, will help prevent outbreaks or at least minimize severity. Recalls now occur on the back side of the contamination peak. Better testing may move recalls to the front side and prevent illnesses.

“Now, little problems can be identified,” he says.

The key for produce companies and producers is “back to basics,” Prince says. “Follow good agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices. Know the product and processes and maintain facilities and equipment.

“Don’t take food safety for granted,” he says. “We can’t tolerate complacency in food safety.”

  Record-high fed cattle prices seem likely to persist for awhile. And high fed cattle prices buoy feeder cattle prices, despite high feed costs. Prospects of solid profits are tempting some cow-calf producers to expand their herds. However, several monkey wrenches are lurking that could fall in the works.  

One possible roadblock is a consumer "push-back" against rising retail beef prices—a softening of demand that may occur. Another is a potential stall in the U.S. economic recovery. Economic growth could succumb to rising oil prices. Or suppose the Federal Reserve starts to worry about inflation. If the Fed begins unwinding its low-interest, easy-money policy, that would slow economic gains.  

However, competition for grass, the availability of acres for grazing and the prices of hay and forages may be most critical, at least at the ranch and farm level. "Cow-calf producers will not expand their herds unless they have enough grass on their pastures to feed a larger herd and unless enough hay is available to cover their needs over the winter," says Altin Kalo, a livestock market analyst with Steiner Consulting Group, Manchester, N.H.  

U.S. hay acreage down 1.5%, fourth lowest acreage on record   USDA surveys in March indicate U.S. farmers plan to harvest 58.973 million acres of hay in 2011, down 900,000 acres or 1.5% from 2010. This is the smallest number of harvested hay acres since 1994 and, according to USDA, the fourth lowest ever on record. Hay acres peaked in 2002 and since then have contracted by about 5%.    

Some of the reduction in hay acres is due to fewer cows. The 30.865 million head on hand as of Jan. 1, 2011—which is the latest survey of the U.S. beef cow inventory--was 2.3 million head lower or 6.8% lower than in January 2002.   Rising competition from other crops for acreage is another reason for declining hay acres. Demand for grains and oilseeds has shifted some marginal land into row crop production.  

Expansion watch: cattle producers have not held back heifers  

"The thinking is that if deferred feeder and live cattle prices rise, producers will respond by holding back heifers and the extra demand for feed will cause hay acres to rise again," says Kalo. "So far, that has not taken place. Plus cow-calf operators will likely find feed availability more challenging even if they decide to expand. Drought in the Southern Plains is a significant concern."  

The reduction in hay production will delay any plans to rebuild herds. "Some reports indicate producers continue to operate in survival mode, trying to maintain as much of the core herd as they can," says Kalo. "Sharply higher corn prices will intensify competition for feed."    

He adds, "This gives beef producers an incentive to put on as much gain outside of feedlots as much as possible. So far that has not happened because live cattle prices have risen at such a brisk pace. Feedlots show strong demand for feeders, placing lighter weight calves on feed. Pulling lightweight cattle into feedlots has kept dry hay prices in check."    

But suppose cattle prices stall. "Then the situation could reverse," says Kalo. "Delaying placements could boost hay needs and spike hay values, thus further complicating herd rebuilding plans."  

Summing up: key points to consider about cattle herd expansion

• Stratospheric feeder cattle prices lure cow-calf producers to expand.  
• But producers will not expand unless they have enough grazing available and enough hay for the winter.
• Any slowdown in feedlot placements could intensify the need for forage outside of feedlots.  

Some of the driest conditions and biggest declines in 2011 hay acres are in Texas and Oklahoma. These two states account for almost a quarter of the U.S. beef cow inventory. Producers in these two states indicate they'll harvest a combined 8.1 million hay acres, 4% less hay acres than in 2010.   However, the total forage supply is down more than acreages. On May 2, last year 60% of the hay acreage in Oklahoma rated good or excellent. This year's figure is 18%. The Texas forage situation is more severe. Early last May, 57% rated good or excellent. In the first week of May 2011, only 5% of Texas hay land was rated good. None rated excellent.

Good stocker operators think about how to make their cattle better for the next segment in the beef business. 

Many of them gathered at the Backgrounding for Quality field day near Hamilton, KS, last month to learn more about what feeders want and how to get there.

Jerry Bohn, general manager of Pratt (KS) Feeders, shared his experience with the group. 

“If you want a premium price, you must have premium cattle. Make them better,” he said. “If you have a story to tell a buyer, you'll be in good shape.”

Any story must be backed by facts, of course.

“That helps us help them,” Bohn said. “We need to know if they are nutrient sufficient before we create a feeding program.”

Pfizer veterinarian Mitch Blanding said past feeding level and health programs go hand in hand. “We often overlook the role nutrition plays in prevention,” he said. “We can have everything else in place for health, but if you neglect nutrition it doesn't matter what else you do.”

The educational program was presented at the Collinge Ranch, and stocker operator Mike Collinge shared what he does. 

“We like to move them through the system as often as possible,” he said. “I really believe how we handle them here will affect how they perform after we gather them off grass. Feedback from the feedyards says this system pays off big time.”

Besides that proactive health stance, the ranch crew is simply around and observing the cattle often.

Bohn confirmed that program has long-term benefits down the line. “One important thing to us is, how easy are these cattle to handle? Are they used to people and horses and feed trucks? How they are handled at a place like Mike's here has a huge impact on disposition, and disposition is also very important to us. 

“We like it when we don't have to worry about one jumping the chute when we work them or one of my guys getting run over by an ornery one in the pen,” he said. “But most importantly, calm cattle feed better; and they perform better in the packing plant.” 

Most of the cattle fed at the Pratt yard are marketed on a value-based grid, and Bohn pointed out that avoiding discounts is the key to making money in such a system.

“You don't have as many dark cutters with calm cattle, and that's a big discount we want to avoid,” he said.

The only way to know if your ranch practices are beneficial to the feedyard is to ask.

“The surest way to get carcass data back is to own them through the feeding phase,” Bohn said, but it's not the only way. He suggests talking to the feeder up front to see if they're willing to give you performance and carcass data feedback.

“The information-sharing business is getting better,” he said. “Sharing is good for everyone involved.”

The field day was sponsored by Pfizer Animal Health, Certified Angus Beef LLC and Pratt Feeders. 

The move solidifies Teys’ position as the second-largest beef processor in Australia, Wayata-based Cargill said in a news release.

The new company, called "Teys Australia — a Cargill Joint Venture,” is equally owned by both companies with equal board representation.

Allan Teys will be chairman, and Brad Teys will serve as CEO of the new company. The company will be headquartered in Beenleigh, Queensland.

The joint venture will have the capacity to process 1.5 million head of cattle per year.

”We are committed to providing growth and opportunity for Australian cattle producers through vigorous focus on efficiency and improved domestic and export opportunities,” Brad Teys said in a statement. “The combination of Teys and Cargill brings together our combined strengths to provide the best support for Australian cattle producers.”

Click here to read Cargill’s news release.

Marcellus Permit "Rubber Stamp:" Krancer said a recent news article attacked four DEP staff by name for what it said was rubber stamping Marcellus Shale permit reviews, when in fact it was a lawyer attempting to try an appeal of a DEP action taken by the previous Administration in the press. The reporter just took the quotes from the lawyer at face value and did not know the Marcellus gas permit is not only reviewed by a geologist, but for meeting well casing requirements, water quality, erosion and sedimentation and other requirements. Krancer said it's his job to take on attacks like that, not his employees. He said he told his employees if they do their job, he will "have their backs." He also said he inherited a "balkanized" Oil and Gas Program where three different regions and Central Office each have pieces of the program. "I'm not happy with that, we need more focus and need to be coordinated," Krancer said. "Any ideas I'm delighted to have (for changing the program)."

Marcellus Shale Enforcement: Krancer said it was never his order to review all notices of violation before they were issued in the Oil and Gas Program as reported in news articles.
"I'm here to tell you inspectors were never under an order or directive or anything else to clear through Mike Krancer or anybody else in Central Office to write notices of violation. That story was blown way out of proportion; it was never the case," said Krancer. He said what he is doing is focusing on consistency and making sure notice of violations and enforcement actions stand up when they are challenged in court.
He noted the state Oil and Gas Act requires the DEP Secretary to approve well shutdown orders and his agency has already taken a number of actions this year to shutdown operations not complying with the law. Krancer read a letter to the Committee from the Galeton Water Authority thanking DEP staff for taking prompt action in one recent case to shutdown an operation. He also pointed to the recent call to Marcellus Shale drillers to stop taking their wastewater to public treatment plants exempted from complying with the new Total Dissolved Solids water quality standards by the previous Administration. "We got compliance in 28 hours, not 28 days" using the approach we did, Krancer said. Krancer objected to assertions by some that Pennsylvania's Marcellus regulations are inadequate and said the Commonwealth now compares well with other states.
He said his main job in regulating Marcellus Shale drilling is to protect the water. "At the end of the day, my job is to make sure gas is done and gas is done right," said Krancer.
General Approach To Enforcement: As another example of his general attitude on enforcement, Krancer pointed to an opinon he wrote as an Environmental Hearing Board judge-- DEP v. Leeward Construction (2001 EHB 870)-- where he asked the question about whether the penalty imposed in the case was high enough given the flagrant and deliberate nature of the violations by the defendant. In particular, he said, he encouraged DEP staff throughout his career as a judge to bring him evidence of any economic benefits a violator gained by not complying with the law. The opinion says in part, "Allowing Leeward in these circumstances to have profited at all from this transaction is not only wrong, but also it puts at a competitive disadvantage companies that take the steps and incur the costs to perform their activities in a law abiding fashion. This latter situation creates a synergy of adverse effect by simultaneously promoting the degradation of the environment and undermining the competitive free market system."
"I want to leave a legacy as a good enforcer," said Krancer.

Oil and Gas Act Penalties: Krancer said in response to a question Gov. Corbett supports an increase in penalties under the Oil and Gas Act.
Adequacy Of Oil and Gas Enforcement Staff: When asked if DEP had enough staff to enforce Oil and Gas Act requirements, Krancer said the agency is constantly looking at enforcement and permitting capabilities and will adjust its staff accordingly. He noted well permit fees make the Oil and Gas Program self-funding and natural gas severance tax proposals typically do not help fund DEP staff.
Reuse Of Water: Several members of the Committee suggested there may be barriers to reusing public wastewater treatment effluent, treated acid mine drainage and treated drilling wastewater as fracking water and for other industrial process waters. Krancer said he would look into the issues because reusing water would be a win for everyone.
Chesapeake Energy Well Blowout: Krancer told the Committee the agency needs answers to hard questions about how the Chesapeake Energy Marcellus well in Bradford County got out of control, spilling thousands of gallons of fracking water. He said he wants to know the answers to questions like, "Why did it take so long get a well capper out there." He noted all of Chesapeake Energy wells in Pennsylvania are now shut down pending the investigation of the blowout, which was verified by DEP staff.
Working the Federal Government: Krancer said it has been difficult, at times, to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the federal Office of Surface Mining when they suddenly, it seems, came to the conclusion that Pennsylvania is doing things wrong in regulating Marcellus gas wells and in issuing NPDES water quality permits. He said officials, like Steve Heare, head of EPA's Drinking Water Protection Division, said just a year ago that DEP was doing a good job. He also pointed to the non-profit review group STRONGER which also concluded Pennsylvania was doing a good job regulating Marcellus Shale. He said the day-to-day working environment with EPA is being made more difficult when staff level discussion "transcripts" on issues related to Marcellus Shale suddenly end up in articles published in the New York Times out of context. Krancer said House Resolution 87 (Pyle-R-Armstrong) which urges EPA to stop its oversight of state NPDES water quality permits and restore the federal-state relationship of past years is a good message for the state to send. (The resolution was adopted by the House this week.)
He also noted EPA's approach to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay does not recognize the fact that Pennsylvania has thousands of local governments and frequently does not count the good work done by the state's farmers to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution.
"Suddenly DEP has gotten feckless and incompetent since January 19 (Gov. Corbett's swearing in day)," said Krancer. "The Department is on the job and doing a good job. We have 2,600 of some of the best employees."
Energy Policy Formulation: Krancer said there will be significant changes in the way the state's energy policy is done. In the past, the DEP Secretary was the be-all and end-all for energy policy. "You're not going to see that anymore," Krancer said. He said he will be part of a team, working with the Governor's Energy Executive Patrick Henderson, to address energy issues.
He noted Pennsylvania needs a diversified energy portfolio-- nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar and wind-- for the future.
Examples of Bad Science: Krancer pointed to two recent examples of what he called "bad science" which attempt to influence public policy. One was a Cornell University study which wrongly concluded the carbon footprint of natural gas was even larger than coal. Independent analysts concluded the study overstates the carbon emissions by at least 75 percent. The other was a report by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives on hazardous chemicals and carcinogens in Marcellus Shale fracking fluids which Krancer called "unconscionable" for its misrepresentation of basic information and the public health risk.

Source: NorthcentralPA.com

AGree is launching at a pivotal moment for food and agriculture policy. Over the next four decades there will be an additional 2.6 billion people on Earth to feed — a 38 percent population increase from today — in addition to the 925 million people who currently suffer under-nutrition or hunger. Simultaneously, the world faces a limited amount of easily accessible arable land, increasing pressures on freshwater quality and availability and accelerating environmental degradation.

Solutions to these challenges will require best-in-class research, comprehensive analysis and cross-sector dialogue — resources productively brought together for the first time under the AGree initiative. AGree will fill a crucial void in current agriculture research and discussions that frequently do not consider solutions across multiple sectors such as environment, energy, rural economies and health.

AGree’s mission to nurture dialogue among diverse opinions on agriculture issues is embodied by the leaders of the initiative: Dan Glickman, former secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture under President Bill Clinton and a former congressman from Kansas for 18 years; Gary Hirshberg, chairman, president and “CE-Yo” of Stonyfield Farm; Jim Moseley, former deputy secretary at the U.S. Department of Agriculture under President George W. Bush and Indiana farmer for more than 40 years; and, Emmy Simmons, former assistant administrator for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade at the U.S. Agency for International Development and a board member for several organizations engaged in international agriculture and global development.

“Agriculture issues need to be at the top of the United States’ and world’s agenda, alongside energy, healthcare and national security,” Glickman said. “AGree will elevate the agriculture and food policy conversation. We will make it clear to leaders and policymakers that, while difficult, solving food and agriculture issues is of utmost importance and can help solve other pressing problems including public health and the need for economic growth,” he said.

“Our current food system is broken for farmers, consumers and the environment,” Hirshberg said. “We must move beyond the political knee-jerk defense of traditional agriculture and face the need for change armed with real-world, scientific facts and analysis that AGree can provide,” Hirshberg said.

“Agriculture has evolved from simply producing food to feed people and now has numerous demands placed on it. As a result the current discussion on agriculture and food policy is having problems focusing on what is really important; stakeholders talk past one another and often fail to comprehend policy implications beyond a specific sector,” Moseley said. “The key to solving these diverse policy questions is through dialogue across sectors. AGree will promote these conversations and help us find the right balance on these conflicts to meet the broader public demands we are experiencing,” he said.

“We face a world where nearly a billion people already go hungry everyday; those numbers will continue to rise if we do not address underlying issues of quantity and quality of the world’s food systems,” Simmons said. “AGree can help align our domestic policies with the growing needs in developing countries for food security, nutrition and equitable development.”

The past 20 years have created competition and division among stakeholders on priorities such as environment, production, economy and nutrition — creating an impasse as lawmakers try to develop food and agriculture policies here in the United States and abroad.

But the world can no longer afford to stay disjointed and uncompromising, shying away from the hard decisions necessary to address these problems.

AGree is uniquely qualified to foster these necessary answers by starting with an open mind to new solutions and by convening a diverse set of stakeholders including conventional and organic farmers, ranchers, nutritionists, energy experts, environmentalists, financiers, international aid veterans and public health specialists.

AGree will provide the first steps of genuine dialogue and insightful data that will enable effective and meaningful decisions about food and agriculture policy. The group will lay a path forward through sound solutions generated by careful research and analysis that can guide policymakers and stakeholders as they undertake this critical endeavor.

AGree is funded by Ford Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and The Walton Family Foundation.
 

Source: Cattle Trader Center

We use timed AI programs routinely in our practice.  In beef herds there is a huge savings in labor due to the convenience of being able to pre determine weeks in advance what day the herd will need to be gathered for chute work.   This tool has allowed us to implement AI in commercial herds that would not have heat detected and bred after observed heats. 

The convenience factor of AI in my opinion is seen on both ends of gestation.  It is a huge advantage to have 60% of your cows bred on day 1 of the breeding season strictly for labor and convenience. 

There are also  economic reasons why this is beneficial.  If you are able to breed 60% AI (I tell my producers to hope for > than 60 but to expect 60 or <) and then if the bull can achieve 60% preg rates on the remaining 40% of the herd you have 84% bred in the first 21 days. 

Realistically what we see is that, especially with low birthweight bulls, the gestation is shortened and often the first round of calving is nearly done by the “due” date.  Having the calving season front end loaded increases the average weight of your calves at sale by increasing the average age of each calf , increases the likely hood of getting cows bred back and increase the continuity of the group. We have all seen herds that have semen checked a bull and found out at preg check that he went bad during the breeding season and this is insurance towards minimizing that risk as well. 

If these are not enough reasons then another is to safeguard against Trichomoniasis.  Those in western states have long dealt with Trich and it is recently moving into the Midwest.  By using AI in a herd, you minimize the damage done if Trich is introduced.  By eliminating bull breeding on the first heat cycle Trich does not have affect until the second cycle when the infected bulls begin breeding.   

Using AI also allows you to decrease your bull power and increase genetic potential by using proven sires. Options can be utilized such as using maternal bulls on cows compatible with keeping replacement  animals and terminal sires in the others.  Another option is to have a strictly terminal bull as a clean up to maximize profits from these calves while using a maternal bull for AI or a mixture of maternal and terminal bulls for AI depending on the cow. 

This process is not to be taken lightly and there is significant financial investment.   Care must be taken in setting up all dates, etc. and timing of injections is crucial.  Depending on the facility we usually limit the herd size to 80 – 120  hd.  With two AI techs we can get these through in a timely manner and our variation of time from injection to AI is minimized. 

In a time when calf prices are at all time highs every pound of beef matters.  AI allows us to use better genetics, increase calf size by increasing average age at weaning, decrease bull power, decrease biosecurity risk and maximize labor.  More and more people in our practice are utilizing this management tool to keep their cow herds moving forward into a changing beef industry.

But when is the right time to start grazing? With high rainfall and cool temperatures, turning cows out prematurely can result in overgrazing an already short supply of forage. Overgrazing stresses plants, depletes existing root reserves and requires a long recovery period. The lack of leaf area diminishes opportunities to take advantage of free solar energy, he says.

Consider turning cows out onto pasture with 6-8" forage height. One inch of plant should yield 250-300 lbs of dry-matter nutrition per acre, so 6-8" forage heights should produce total yields of a ton.

"The key in this is that the manager should only allow cattle to take half of that existing forage, most likely needing to move cattle daily or provide large enough pastures that the cattle do not graze the plant below the 3- 4" range," Rowntree says. Grazing below that height will slow recovery and decrease growth and performance.

Graze with low densities or large paddock spaces and increase stock density as the grazing season progresses or smaller paddocks each return, he adds. "Equally important, in early summer when forages grow explosively, cattle can return to the same pasture paddock in as short as 18 days. But in late summer and fall it may be as long 45 to 60 days."

Rowntree shows how to determine when to start grazing in this video.

As producers begin to tally and evaluate this season’s calf crop, they should keep reproductive health top of mind, says John Rodgers, DVM, Veterinary Operations, Pfizer Animal Health.

“Reproduction is a major driver of profitability in cow/calf production,” Dr. Rodgers says. “Therefore, it is important to maintain reproductive health to optimize productivity. Respiratory diseases are far and away the most talked about in cattle production, but reproductive diseases can be the difference in producing a calf or not, and that’s what will really impact the bottom line at the end of the year.”

Reproductive diseases also can often be difficult to diagnose and many producers may not realize their herds have been affected. While they can easily see if cows abort late term or simply do not settle at all, producers may not notice if cows abort early in the pregnancy.

“Signs of reproductive disease can vary from relatively mild cases of poor reproductive performance to severe abortion storms,” Dr. Rodgers says. “In some cases, producers may think that cows just aren’t settling when, in fact, diseases like infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), vibriosis or leptospirosis may be to blame.”

A 2002 study showed, when all reproductive diseases and conditions are factored in, infertility, abortions or stillbirths, dystocia, retained placentas, and metritis or pyometra cost beef producers up to $502 million.1 What’s more, reproductive diseases can cost more than just a calf at the end of calving season — they can cut efficiencies and profits from unprotected operations. In fact, losses to reproductive disease cost U.S. beef cow/calf producers $13.10 to $14.90 per cow annually.

With so much at stake, Dr. Rodgers says producers should talk with their veterinarians when reviewing their vaccination programs. 

“Talking with a veterinarian is always an important step when revising or developing a new vaccination program,” Dr. Rodgers says. “Veterinarians can provide the technical expertise needed to design reproductive vaccination programs specific to a producer’s particular situation.”

In addition to keeping an eye on nutrition, bull fertility and other management factors, producers also should look for vaccines that help protect against pathogens that can cause poor reproductive performance, including infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) virus, bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) Types 1 and 2 viruses, Campylobacter fetus (vibrio) and Lepto hardjo-bovis, Dr. Rodgers says.

North Carolina (71 percent), Tennessee (34 percent) and Texas (66 percent) lead the states in corn planting. Kansas (29 percent) was the only state to report an increase when compare to their state’s five-year average. Illinois (10 percent), Indiana (2 percent), Iowa (3 percent), Michigan (1 percent), Minnesota (0 percent), North Dakota (0 percent), Ohio (1 percent), Pennsylvania (1 percent), South Dakota (0 percent) and Wisconsin (0 percent) showed less than one-percent improvement from last week.

When compared to their state’s progress report from last year, Colorado and Texas showed an increase of 3 and 5 percent, respectively. Percentages in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, and Minnesota dropped by at least 50 percent from the 2010 report -- the biggest difference noted.

Nationally, states are 37 percent behind last year’s report.

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

In the U.S. cattle industry, animal abuse will not be tolerated. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has proactively developed multiple initiatives to assure industry wide adoption of sound animal husbandry practices. These programs, which are based on decades of practical experience, research and the most up-to-date science and education, ensure animal health and wellbeing and provide a safe, quality beef product for consumers here in the United States and around the globe.

Caring for cattle is not just something we have to do, it’s something we take pride in doing. I learned from my father how to care for cattle just as many other ranchers did. However, the face of our industry is changing. We can no longer rely on the tradition of passing animal care principles on from one generation to the next.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, there are more than 308 million people living in this country. Yet there are only 742,000 beef cattle herds, of which more than 140,000 are represented by NCBA. Simply put, our work is cut out for us. That is why, as the oldest and largest national organization representing beef cattle producers, NCBA in 1987 developed the Beef Quality Assurance Program (BQA), which is funded by the Beef Checkoff Program, to provide an educational platform for the cattle industry.

BQA is a successful voluntary program that helps to proactively identify and address areas of needed improvement in beef production. It works because of the responsibility and the ownership of the industry.

In the Gettysburg Address, President Abraham Lincoln said our nation’s government was developed “by the people and for the people.” I am not attempting to compare apples to oranges here, but history has proven when individuals take ownership, they take responsibility. BQA is a successful program “by industry, for industry” that should never be weakened by being misused or construed as the basis of a regulatory or government mandated program.
 

BQA was designed and is regularly updated to provide flexibility to meet the diversity of the industry, including geographical needs, every producer sector or business model and all producer sizes. As technologies continue to develop, so have our programs.

Veterinarians, animal scientists and farmers and ranchers joined forces to develop more than 70 online training modules through the Animal Care Training Program, a cattle management training program, which is managed by the Beef Cattle Institute at Kansas State University.

The Animal Care Training Program provides relevant training information for animal caregivers and is available in both English and Spanish to help us efficiently reach all individuals directly responsible for caring for cattle.

While training modules are available online and through other multimedia, we continue to utilize hands-on training. Stockman and Stewardship sessions, held around the country, apply BQA materials in a hands-on format with an emphasis on increasing cattle performance by reducing handling stress.

BQA guidelines provide managers of beef and dairy operations tools to train all workers on appropriate cattle husbandry and management, which includes humane handling and euthanasia. According to BQA, euthanasia is humane death occurring without pain and suffering. The decision to euthanize an animal should consider the animal’s wellbeing. When necessary, BQA states euthanasia should be done by either a trained employee or a veterinarian in accordance with the American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) guidelines.

The BQA Code of Conduct states that abuse of animals will not be tolerated. We believe any individual — from workers to guests — who witness willful animal abuse is responsible for making every effort to stop it immediately. Watching and doing nothing to stop abuse isn’t acceptable.

BQA isn’t our only tool. NCBA has worked with industry to develop and implement the Cattle Industry’s Guidelines for the Care and Handling of Cattle. The guidelines provide a basis for care and handling in areas ranging from feeding and nutrition to disease prevention practices to euthanasia.

BQA also developed a Quality Assurance Marketing Code of Ethics and the cattle industry follows a Producers Guide for the Judicious Use of Antibiotics, guidelines developed more than two decades ago and adapted from the American Veterinary Medical Association, AABP and the Academy of Veterinary Consultants’ antibiotic use guidelines. NCBA’s Cattle Health and Well-Being committee provides strategic guidance to develop policies to ensure cattle health and wellbeing issues are being addressed to maintain the health and quality of cattle care.
 

The combination of these long-term proactive and responsible programs has made the United States a world leader in cattle health and well being as well as contributed to domestic and international food security.

Our programs recognize the importance of each animal in our care as well as the entire cattle herd. We also recognize the human element – a much more difficult challenge to successfully address as fewer people are raised on farms. Cultural and language differences add to that hurdle.

That’s why we’ve stepped up efforts to deliver education in multi-media options as well as hands-on training. We will continue to work to expand and improve this educational reach.

Unfortunately, there are individuals and organizations attempting to spread misconceptions about animal care. They haven’t taken time to learn about the many initiatives and programs currently in place in the U.S. beef cattle industry to ensure animals are treated humanely.

Rather than intentionally misleading consumers, media and all stakeholders, which actually demonstrates a total lack of care about the animals in front of them, it would serve everyone well if they would take a few minutes to learn about our industry’s commitment to animal care.

NCBA members are passionately committed to providing the utmost care for our cattle and providing a safe, wholesome beef supply. We prove that each day. We will continue working to improve and address the human element in our diverse industry and never stop educating everyone handling and raising cattle.
 

Source: Southeast Farm Press

“I think in the next 20 to 30 years, this industry is going to spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to raise high-quality beef with the least amount of grain. That means that every one of you [stocker cattlemen] has a tremendous opportunity, because it’s going to put an emphasis back on forage.”

That was Oklahoma State University agriculture economics professor Derrell Peel’s message at last month’s “Backgrounding for Quality” field day. The event, held at the Collinge Ranch near Hamilton, Kan., was sponsored by Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB), Pfizer Animal Health and Pratt Feeders LLC.

The tightest grain supply in 15 years is only half the concern.

“We are extremely tight on cattle,” Peel said. The industry has liquidated cattle 13 of the past 15 years. As of January 2010, total cattle inventory was less than 93 million head, the lowest since 1959.

“We still don’t have any data that tells us that we are saving heifers,” he said. “I think we’re looking at 3 to 5 years, at least, before we fundamentally change herd numbers.”

So every cattlemen needs to make the most out of each calf they care for, but usually that quest for eking out more quality includes corn.

“Corn prices are probably not coming down any time soon. We’re in a whole new world,” Peel said. “It’s not a supply problem. We’ve continued to produce record levels, but the increased total demand for this product has made us barely able to meet our needs.”

The average price for corn during the past 25 years was $2.25 per bushel, less than one-third the level of many spring 2011 reports. Energy competitors for those bushels are not going away, even if policy changes, he said.

“How do we survive high corn prices? In the short run, we make changes by taking cattle into the feedlot at higher weights and utilize the forages we have as much as we can,” Peel said. “Longer term, I think we might have to re-evaluate how we feed cattle altogether. Long term, your forage business is going to take on an emphasis like it’s not had in 30 to 40 years.”

There is a glimmer of good news.

“The beef industry can survive higher corn prices better than pork or poultry,” he said. “We spent 50 years in this country trying to figure out how to allow cattle to eat the most cheap grain they could, and that was the right thing to do in that environment.”

The next few decades will focus on how to maintain quality while decreasing grain dependence, he said.

Just as the corn prices are sure to stay high, Peel predicts the same for beef prices.

“It always makes me nervous of course, when prices come on that fast that they’ll go away that fast. But this really is something that’s been building for a long time,” he said. “Fed cattle have increased relative to feeder cattle, relative to the calves and boxed beef; all of these prices have moved together. That tells me that these prices are proved by real market fundamentals.”

For more information on the meeting, search “Backgrounding for Quality” on the Black Ink Blog, www.blackinkwithcab.com.

Source: Southwest Farm Press

University of Nebraska animal scientist and genetics specialist Matt Spangler, PhD, says the industry gradually is working toward integrating genomic information with phenotypic data to develop true marker-assisted EPDs. As multiple-trait selection becomes more complex, the industry needs to incorporate those EPDs into economic in-dices applied toward targeted breeding objectives.

As the tests explain more genetic variation, they will have more impact on accuracy of prediction. Currently for most traits, Spangler says, genomic information is most useful in bulls with low-accuracy EPDs. As the accuracy of EPDs increases, the genomic information has less impact.

Spangler believes inclusion of marker information into EPD calculations holds three primary benefits:

1. Increased accuracy for young animals such as yearling bulls, which is particularly beneficial when selecting on traits that are measured later in life, such as stayability.

2. Shortened generation intervals.

3. EPD values for novel traits such as efficiency, healthfulness of beef products or disease susceptibility, for which phenotype information is lacking.

Increased accuracy means less risk and faster genetic progress, he adds. Two yearling bulls might have equal EPDs for a trait, but more information and greater accuracy can show significant differences.

Spangler also points out that for some traits, using an average for the bull battery can be sufficient for moving the herd toward a genetic goal. But for other traits such as calving ease, individual data is more important, as one outlier bull could cause economic losses.

Going commercial

As the information available from DNA testing grows, increasing numbers of commercial producers are getting a head start, putting the new tools to work in their herds.

Barb Downey and her family own Downey Ranches, a commercial cow-calf and seedstock operation near Wamego, Kan. The ranch manages an Angus-based herd of about 550 cows, of which 150 are registered Angus managed for production of registered bulls and replacement females.

“Our focus over the years,” Downey says, “has been to produce high-quality beef while also maintaining solid, productive range cows.” Toward that goal, the Downeys have finished their calves and collected carcass data ever since the option became available around 1990. As founding members of U.S. Premium Beef, they have fed all their calves as finished cattle since its inception, except for those selected as seedstock animals.

Although they were involved in some early research with Igenity and have tested bulls for genetic defects, Downey says they did not begin using DNA profiling in their commercial herd until the past two years, when they felt the scope of the tests and supporting data made them practical at the commercial level.

Last year, the Downeys employed Igenity’s replacement heifer profile as a selection tool in their commercial herd. This test, which applies to any breed, provides ratings for fertility, maternal calving ease, average daily gain, percent Choice and tenderness in heifer calves.

While the family has selected for carcass quality for years based on progeny data, Downey believes the test will speed the rate of improvement. She also believes including beef tenderness among selection criteria will pay in the long run. Packer grids currently do not offer premiums for tenderness, but she wants to be ready when they do.

Downey sees the replacement-heifer profile as a good tool to use in conjunction with traditional selection criteria for replacement females. It provides information early on young calves, which allows early sorting. Heifers that looked good in the profile can be sorted again later, based on traditional phenotypic traits. Downey believes the genotype information will, over time, pay off for replacement heifers returned to the herd and for heifers the family sells, by giving just a little more confidence in their value as replacements.

This year, she plans to use Igenity’s Angus-specific profile on the operation’s bulls. This test uses a marker panel that covers 21 traits including dry-matter intake, birthweight, mature height, mature weight, milk, scrotal circumference, weaning weight and yearling height. Igenity has an agreement with Angus Genetics Inc. to provide Angus breeders with genomic-enhanced EPDs for multiple traits.

Profiling bulls, Downey says, should help identify outliers early and capture more value by allowing early marketing of cull animals. Conversely, the testing could also identify bulls that have good potential but don’t express certain economic traits, such as backfat or marbling, during the typical bull-test time frame.

Downey says while she is looking at genomic information on feed efficiency, she’s taking it slowly in terms of selection pressure, wanting to be sure selecting for efficient feeder steers has no negative effect on cow performance.

For now, the Downeys are focusing on maternal traits, stayability, docility and carcass traits. They’ve been selecting for the same combination of traits over the years using phenotypic measures and progeny testing, but they believe incorporating genetic profiles will speed the process.

Andrew Maupin, cattle sales manager at Spruce Mountain Ranch, a seedstock operation near Larkspur, Colo., says the operation recently began gathering and testing genomic information using the HD-50K test from Pfizer Animal Genetics, a high-density 50,000-marker panel for Angus cattle. This analysis covers 14 economically important traits, with results reported as percentile ranks associated with molecular breeding values, benchmarked against more than 5,000 HD-50K-tested Black Angus animals and reported to the nearest 1 percent. According to Pfizer, the panel provides accuracy on yearling bulls or heifers equal to that from information on up to 15 progeny.

Pfizer currently is working with other breeds to develop 50K tests and offers its GeneStar test for any breed, providing molecular breeding values for feed efficiency, marbling and tenderness, as well as a meat quality palatability index and homozygous black.

The Spruce Mountain operation manages about 450 cows, with an emphasis on embryo transfer in a donor herd. Maupin says the ranch has begun with testing sires in their breeding program, with plans to eventually include replacement heifers. He also sees the tests having application for evaluating differences between flush mates, which look the same but can vary in genetic potential.

In an eye-catching example of this concept, Spruce Mountain supplied Pfizer Animal Genetics with three yearling Angus bulls, each full-siblings flush mates produced using embryo transfer. Pfizer displayed the bulls in their trade-show exhibit at the 2011 Cattle Industry Convention in Denver, challenging attendees to guess their differences. The bulls looked identical, and as full siblings with no progeny data, their EPDs were identical. The 50K-marker panel, however, found differences. They were all good bulls but for different reasons. The test revealed one as superior for calving ease, another better for milk and reproductive traits in his heifer daughters and the third rated higher for growth and carcass traits.

Maupin sees tremendous economic potential in genomic ratings for feed efficiency, and the group intends to apply the information toward early selection decisions. Growth and carcass traits are already built into the herd’s genetic base; now the ranch wants to identify those that perform most efficiently. Or, more precisely, identify those that perform least efficiently. Maupin says early testing will focus on identifying inefficient outliers, adding they do not want to wait two years for progeny testing to determine if they are headed in the right direction.

Spangler says the greatest benefits of marker-assisted selection begin in seedstock herds at the nucleus level, creating higher-accuracy EPDs for herd sires. Those benefits trickle down to the commercial level with better information on the bulls cow-calf producers use in their herds.

Finally Spangler encourages producers to set genetic goals and apply information that already is available. “For those who have not yet adopted 30-year-old technology such as EPDs, the inherent selection mistakes that have been made in the past will only be exacerbated as the accuracy of genetic predictions of young animals is increased.”

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

The United States Congress passed and President Obama signed into law on December 17, 2010 the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010.

Included in this act were significant changes to existing estate tax law.

This law is effective until Dec. 31, 2012. Estate and business succession planning requires thinking many years into the future. Laws that are effective for only two years are not conducive to a long-term plan.

The law significantly reduced the possibility that the estates of most citizens will be required to pay an estate tax by raising the value of an estate that is not subject to the estate tax. For example, the estate tax exclusion was raised to $5 million dollars per person from $1 million dollars per person that would have been effective without this new law. Now, a married couple’s estate with assets valued at less than $10 million ($5million each) should not be required to pay any federal estate tax.

The gifting provision also changed significantly. A person can give away or “gift” assets anytime. The new law is more generous than previous ones, as gifting and the estate valuation exclusion are now unified at $5 million. For example, a person could gift $2 million dollars of assets during their lifetime and still have an estate worth $3 million dollars at death and not owe any federal estate tax. A person with an estate valued at $5 million could give it all away during their lifetime and not owe any federal estate tax. It should be noted that a gift greater than $13,000 given to any one person during a calendar year will require you to file a gift tax form with the Internal Revenue Service.

Another major change is the addition of a portability provision, which allows the living spouse of a deceased to use the deceased spouse’s unused exclusion. For example, if the deceased spouse had assets of $2 million at death, there is $3 million of estate tax exclusion still available ($5 million-$2 million) that is passed to the surviving spouse to use. If the living spouse has assets of $6 million at death, that spouse can use the additional $3 million of spousal unused exemption to increase the taxable exempt value of his estate to cover up to $8 million as the new taxable threshold ($8 million exemption - $6 million estate = $ zero above exemption). No estate tax would be owed even though he died with an estate valued at $6 million.

If an estate does owe an estate tax, the tax rate is 35 percent. The tax rate for gifts and estates exceeding a combined $5 million per person is 35 percent. For example, if a single person gifted $2 million of assets during his lifetime and still had $4 million in assets at death, the total estate valuation is $6 million. The estate has a $5 million dollar amount that is excluded from tax, so the $1 million balance above the exemption would be taxed at 35 percent, or $350,000 in estate tax is owed the federal government. There might also be an estate tax owed to that person’s state of residence depending on state law.

Another important change was the allowance of a step-up in property basis. For example: John purchased some land for $400 per acre, and at death its fair market value is $3,000 per acre. If he has an heir that inherits this land, the basis, or valuation for calculation of capital gain is $3,000 per acre, the fair market value at death. If the heir sells the property after inheriting it for $3,000 per acre or less, there is no capital gains tax owed.

To the contrary, if John were to gift the property during his lifetime, the basis stays at $400 per acre. If the heir receives the property while John is alive and sells it for $3,000 per acre, there is a taxable capital gain of $2,600 per acre ($3,000 - $400), which is taxed at the capital gains rate based on his adjusted gross income for income tax purposes.

Estate and business succession planning can be complicated. Consult an estate attorney or other qualified professional before finalizing an estate plan. Additiional information can be found at http://southeastfarmpress.com/management/major-changes-made-estate-tax-planning.

The agricultural community was solidly behind the estate tax law. Seehttp://southeastfarmpress.com/management/farm-groups-call-estate-tax-reform.

“Agriculture takes natural resources and turns them into wealth,” Reese said during an address at the recent Oklahoma Peanut Expo in Lone Wolf.

He said $2.2 billion “comes off our fields at the end of the year. Livestock in Oklahoma adds another $4 billion. Oklahoma farmers and ranchers are creating $6 billion in wealth we didn’t have last year.”

He said much of that production is exported and “brings revenue into Oklahoma.”

Agricultural exports meant a lot to the state’s economy, he added. “One of nine export dollars coming into Oklahoma comes from agriculture. That is significant. It’s great to be a part of the industry that creates this wealth.”

He said viable agriculture is also crucial to national security. “Domestic energy production and using agriculture for alternative energy are important, but nothing is as important as our food supply.”

Reese said many Oklahomans got a small taste of what it’s like to suffer a food shortage during a February snowstorm. “Supermarkets ran out of many items,” he said. “If people realized that was a possibility more often, agriculture would be better appreciated. We have to educate consumers that we are the people who provide their food.”

He said much of the political unrest across the world would be significantly reduced “without hunger. We don’t have that here and that’s what makes our nation secure. I thank you for what you do.”

Source: Southwest Farm Press

That legislation is handled by a different committee that's dominated by lawmakers from states where farmers have historically received big government handouts.

The $3.5 trillion budget plan put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has grabbed headlines because of its proposed revamps of Medicare and Medicaid and its tax cuts, but it also would reduce spending on agriculture and a wide range of other federal programs. It awaits a floor vote in the House but has no chance in the Democratic controlled Senate. Still, it's framing the budget debate and some of its proposals could make it into other legislation, including the 2012 farm bill.

Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, commended Ryan for "taking the first serious step in reining in our deficit" but was quick to add that the policy proposals "are simply suggestions. At the end of the day, members of the House Agriculture Committee and I will write the next farm bill."

The Environmental Working Group, which contends subsidies are corporate welfare that foster ecologically unsound farming practices, welcomed the subsidy cuts while expressing reservations about what might happen to conservation programs, which the plan doesn't address.

"We think it's a great start. It's a real gift to the subsidy reform effort. ... Of course this is just his vision. There's nothing compelling anyone to implement any of these changes," EWG analyst David DeGennaro told The Associated Press.

DeGenarro said the GOP plan would go farther in cutting farm subsidies than President Barack Obama's deficit commission, which called for $10 billion in savings from farm programs over 10 years.

"It's a real platform to work from," he said.

The 72-page report laying out Ryan's plan said crop prices and deficits are both hitting new highs. It noted that net farm income this year is forecast to hit the second-highest total in 35 years, and that farmers' five most profitable years in the last 35 have all been in the past decade.

"The record-breaking prosperity of American farmers and farm communities is to be celebrated," the report said. "But it also calls for a re-examination of federal agricultural programs that spend billions each year, to ensure that taxpayers aren't funding support for a sector that is more than capable of thriving on its own."

Ryan has proposed cutting $30 billion over 10 years by spending less on a crop subsidy program called direct payments and giving smaller subsidies to crop insurance. Direct payments were already expected to be a major target in the 2012 farm bill.

Farmers who sign up for direct payments get them regardless of how much they grow or what happens to crop prices in any given year. The fixed per-acre payments are based on a farm's historic production of eligible crops, such as corn or cotton, and don't shrink when crop prices are high, as they are now. Lucas has been a strong defender of the program, which costs about $5 billion a year but is popular with Southern farmers.

The government will spend close to $8 billion this year to subsidize crop insurance, which helps cover farmers' losses due to bad weather and disasters. The Agriculture Department last year renegotiated its agreement with insurance companies to save an estimated $6 billion over 10 years, but Ryan seeks further savings "so that agricultural producers assume the same kind of responsibility for managing risk that other businesses do."

Ryan's plan leaves the details of how to achieve those savings up to Lucas' committee and presumes the changes won't take effect until the next five-year farm bill, which Lucas plans to write next year.

While farm groups said their members are ready to do their part to help balance the budget, they were noncommittal on the details in their statements last week.

"It is vital that decisions to cut farm program spending be made with a recognition of the cyclical nature of our farm economy and its ties to a global economy that can be even more volatile," American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said.

Some state Farm Bureaus and the National Farmers Union have called for spending less on direct payments to free up money for other programs, such as expanded crop insurance, but delegates to the Farm Bureau's national convention in January were unable to reach a consensus.

"If there's any sure thing in agriculture, it is that high prices are always followed by low prices. Too many times, policymakers have declared a new era in farm commodity prices only to watch prices plummet soon after," National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson warned.

But the National Corn Growers Association sounded a more supportive note.

"These cuts are significant, but so is our nation's out-of-control budget deficit. What is important is that farmers are not singled out — the cuts proposed for agriculture are proportional to those proposed for other areas of the federal budget," said its president, Bart Schott.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press
 

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

During this period, a cow uses the majority of the nutrients it consumes to produce milk to sustain a hungry, growing calf. After that, the cow uses the nutrients to regain body condition, and as a last priority, to repair its reproductive system.

"Cows in poor body condition at the time of calving likely will have difficulty rebreeding," cautions Carl Dahlen, North Dakota State University Extension Service beef cattle specialist. "Cows often lose some body condition in the months after calving, and the goal of a solid nutrition program should be to minimize this loss in condition."

Feeding lactating cows to their increased nutrient requirements is the best way to minimize loss of body condition. Every herd has cattle at a variety of ages and body conditions, and every herd has its limitations in the way it can group cows before and after calving.

Minimizing the competition in the feeding area is one way to help ensure cows have access to feed. Thin cows, cows that had difficult births and first-calf heifers may be pushed away from feed by older cows or cows in better condition.

If facilities are available to feed different groups of cows, heifers and thin cows should be fed separately from mature cows, Dahlen advises.

The importance of these increasing nutrient needs is even greater in heifers calving for the first time. In addition to the increased demands of lactation, this class of cattle has more difficulty calving and still is growing. These factors add up to the heifers needing a greater amount of time to start having estrous cycles after calving.

Delayed estrous cycles after calving result in delayed breeding, This is the basis for a common recommendation to calve heifers two weeks prior to other cows in the herd. Being the first to calve means the heifers get more attention, producers can dedicate more time to heifers having problems, and the heifers have more time for uterine repair and resumption of estrous cycles.

Reproductive performance and performance of calves is reduced in thin cows.

However, gaining body condition in thin cows after calving is expensive in terms of feed energy and finances and should be approached with caution, Dahlen says.

Improving body condition is much easier before calving and typically cheaper while the cows are on pasture.

While difficult to accomplish, thin cows may gain body condition after calving.

But overfeeding an entire herd to allow thin cows to gain weight will result in overfeeding the cows in adequate body condition. In addition, cows in good body condition may eat more aggressively and keep thin cows from getting the extra feed delivered for them. If producers decide to feed thin cows to gain weight, the best option is to feed a group of thin cows away from the main herd.

Another area of the nutritional program that needs emphasis at this time of the year is mineral nutrition. Minerals are important for reproduction, health and growth, and these are all areas that drive profit potential in beef operations.

Producers should provide adequate mineral supplements to all classes of cattle.

Producers feeding a mixed ration may consider adding ionophores to cow diets.

Ionophores are feed additives that alter bacterial environment in the rumen.

Ionophores can reduce the feed consumption of cows fed high-forage diets without changing cow performance, thus improving feed efficiency.

"In addition, and possibly more importantly at this time of year, is the effect ionophores can have on coccidiosis-causing organisms," Dahlen says. "Coccidiosis can be devastating to calf health, producing severe scours and death if left untreated. Feeding ionophores can reduce the prevalence of coccidia in cows, thus reducing potential exposure in the calves."

Nutrient content of feeds can vary depending on the field, cutting, year and/or load of feed purchased. The most accurate rations will be formulated with nutrient values of feed used on individual operations.

Also, producers should try to estimate the amount of loss on their operation and increase the feed delivered to their cattle by the amount of feed that is wasted. Each method of feeding (on the ground, in bale rings, in a bunk, etc.) has a different amount of loss. Losses can be as high as 40 percent.

For information on nutrient requirements of cows, cow rations or feed testing, producers should consult their Extension agent or a nutritionist.
 

Source: Cattle Trader Center

The nation’s corn and soybean supplies at the beginning of March fell to unexpectedly low levels, based on a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released earlier March 31. In a separate report, the USDA said it expects American farmers to reduce soybean plantings this spring, though corn acreage will rise to the second-highest total since the end of World War II.

With the spring planting season just beginning and harvest six months away, today’s reports only fueled anxiety over tight corn and soybean supplies, traders and analysts said. Demand from ethanol makers, livestock feeders and exporters remains strong, leaving little margin for error during the upcoming growing season.

Supplies are “razor-thin,” said Matthew Connelly, a corn options broker on the CME Group trading floor in Chicago. “If we go from a wet, cool spring to a hot, dry summer, that’s not good. That will get things going” in the grain markets.

If Midwest weather turns unfavorable, “we could be talking about $10 corn and $20 soybeans,” Connelly said.

In trading March 31, corn futures contracts for delivery from May through July 2012 all rose 30 cents, the maximum daily move allowed by CME. May futures settled at $6.93 ¼ a bushel and December ended at $6.25 ¼. Corn futures reached a 32-month high of $7.35 on March 4.

May soybean futures rose 38 ¼ cents to $14.10 ¼ a bushel, while November futures rose 31 ½ cents to $13.95.

Farmers favoring corn over soybeans

Corn prices were the top-performer among major U.S. grains last year - rising 52 percent, based on CME futures - and the market continued to soar in 2011. High prices have boosted expected returns from planting corn compared with other crops, encouraging more acreage, the USDA said in its annual Prospective Plantings report March 31.

Farmers will plant an estimated 92.18 million acres to corn, up 4.5 percent from 88.19 million in 2010, the USDA said. The projected acreage for 2011 would trail only 2007 plantings of 93.5 million acres as the highest total since 1944.

Analysts on average expected corn plantings at about 91.8 million acres, based on a Dow Jones Newswires survey.

Much of the increase in corn will come at the expense of soybeans. Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska and Ohio are among states where farmers are expected to plant more ground to corn and less to soybeans. In North and South Dakota, corn acres are projected to surge 22 percent and 19 percent, respectively, according to the USDA.

Click here for the USDA’s Prospective Plantings report.

Nationwide soybean plantings are estimated at 76.61 million acres, down 1 percent from 77.4 million last year but still the third-highest acreage on record, according to the USDA. Based on the Dow Jones survey, soybean plantings were estimated at 76.9 million acres.

Spring, summer weather focus of market attention

While big corn acreage could lead to a record crop this fall, shorter-term supply concerns remain a primary focus for traders and analysts. By the end of the 2010-11 marketing year Aug. 31, U.S. corn stocks are expected to reach the lowest level in 15 years.

Jack Scoville, an analyst with Price Futures Group in Chicago, said lower-than-expected stocks figures for corn and soybeans will keep markets “more attuned to weather developments” this spring and summer.

“We’re going to need really good weather, even with all these acres being planted to corn,” Scoville said during a March 31 press briefing at CME following the release of the USDA reports.

Recent corn purchases by exporters as well as livestock feeders has stayed firm even at high prices, Scoville said. Livestock buyers “weren’t too thrilled with $7 (corn), but they paid it,” he said. “They seem to be able to make those numbers work.”

In its Quarterly Stocks report, the USDA said U.S. corn supplies as of March 1 totaled 6.52 billion bushels, down 15 percent from the same date a year earlier. Soybean stocks totaled 1.25 billion bushels, down 1.6 percent.

March 1 corn and soybean supplies were about 180 million bushels and 46 million bushels, respectively, below analysts’ expectations.

Click here for the Quarterly Stocks report.
Feed costs rising with $7 back in sight

The USDA reports signal higher costs for livestock feeders, with many analysts expecting corn futures to climb back above $7 a bushel in coming weeks after tumbling near $6 earlier this month. With expensive feed discouraging herd expansion, cattle and hog prices may rise further.

“Look for livestock markets to advance on prospects for tighter and higher feed supplies, prompting lower weights and more cautious expansion attitude by livestock growers,” Richard Feltes, an analyst with R.J. O’Brien & Associates, said in a March 31 report. “Today’s report sets stage for highly sensitive, weather-driven markets this summer.”

In late-morning trading, April live cattle futures traded on CME fell 0.175 cent to $1.20375 a pound, after touching a record $1.2165. April lean hog futures fell 0.1 cent to 93.45 cents a pound.

Lower soybean acreage may also push soybean meal prices higher, further raising feed costs for livestock producers.

But some analysts noted that soybean acres could still increase above the USDA’s projection. If a wet spring delays planting, farmers may shift more ground to soybeans, which have a shorter growing season than corn.

The USDA’s soybean plantings estimate, at 76.61 million acres, may be revised higher “if the weather is indeed cold-wet through the month of April,” Mike Zuzolo, president of Global Commodity Analytics & Consulting, said in a March 31 report. He also sees the projected corn plantings “as the biggest number we’ll get this spring if the weather doesn’t cooperate.

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

The possibility of $8 corn has increased interest in feeding lower-starch diets to cattle. In a previous article, I stressed exploring alternatives but purposely ignored specific examples to provide an overview of management considerations not limited to feed alone.

Corn is king and often the preferred energy source for many good reasons until supply and cost become limiting. Corn grain can be reduced and perhaps replaced with a variety of byproduct feeds high in digestible fiber in lactating dairy cow diets, resulting in a low-starch diet without adversely affecting lactational performance and ruminal fermentation.

Many nonforage fiber sources, such as soybean hulls, beet pulp, corn gluten feed and dried distillers grains with solubles, are characterized by a low starch content, high fiber digestibility and variable content of soluble fiber and sugar. They are ideal for replacing corn starch with nonforage fiber sources.

And don’t overlook the replacement of corn starch with sugar sources. Molasses or other liquid products also are available locally. Replacing corn with starch from potatoes or sugar from beet sources in high-forage (60-to-40 forage-to-concentrate ratio) diets containing alfalfa silage and corn silage is a viable strategy for reducing dietary starch content while maintaining milk yield.

While my dairy research has not included feeding these products, I am a proponent of beet pulp, probably the “queen” of all byproducts. It fits so well in dairy cow diets, especially during the transition period.

Furthermore, NDSU beef researchers have conducted experiments that support the benefits of feeding sugar and balancing ruminal carbohydrates. This research can be applied to dairy diets. North Dakota is awash in byproducts. The use of nonforage fiber sources is a practical way to reduce the dietary starch content while maintaining lactational performance.

Another feasible strategy to reduce the dietary starch content is to replace corn with high-quality forage. Researchers at the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, Madison, Wis., varied the forage-to-concentrate ratio from 35-to-65 to 80-to-20 and the starch content from 38.3 to 12.3 percent of diets for lactating cows by substituting alfalfa silage for high-moisture ear corn and soybean meal. They noted that reducing the dietary starch content to less than 20.7 percent (65-to-35 forage-to-concentrate ratio) should be avoided when substituting alfalfa silage for high corn starch.

Researchers at the Miner Institute, Chazy, N.Y., working with corn grain, corn silage and byproducts observed no effect on feed intake, milk component production, ruminal metabolism or microbial protein yield when dietary starch was varied between 18 and 25 percent.

What is important to note is that, as dietary starch decreased, the digestibility of that starch increased simultaneously. When predicting the potential impact of starch content of the diet on animal response, nutritionists and herd managers need to consider not only the amount but the digestibility of the starch.

Ultimately, the cow needs a certain amount of rumen-fermentable starch, or fermentable carbohydrate, which will be a function of the amount and the digestibility of the starch and other carbohydrate fractions.
 

Reducing starch carries some cautions, however. You need to watch the cows when feeding low-starch diets. Most of the research conducted with low-starch diets has been short term (less than eight weeks) and focused on midlactation cows. The long-term effect of feeding low-starch diets to cows in all stages of lactation is unknown. Therefore, when implementing low-starch diets on an entire herd basis, the nutritionist and dairy producer should watch for signs that may indicate the dietary starch content is too low.

Signs include decreased milk production, milk protein content and yield, and body condition and weight; increased milk urea nitrogen; and stiffer manure. In addition to watching the cows, feed ingredients should be monitored for changes in neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and starch digestibility. Providing the proper amounts of ruminal-fermentable carbohydrates is critical to optimizing ruminal fermentation and generating volatile fatty acids and microbial protein for energy and amino acid for the cow to use.

Recently, suggested strategies for formulating lactating cow diets when corn prices are high include using more high-quality forage and byproduct feeds to provide highly digestible NDF and nonfiber carbohydrates. Dietary starch content between 18 percent and 21 percent appears to be acceptable when high-quality forages are fed and the dietary starch is highly fermentable in the rumen.

The price for corn grain as a livestock feed has increased substantially during the past two years. Consequently, lower-starch feeding strategies that minimize the amount of corn may be more profitable than higher-starch diets, particularly if lactation performance and ruminal fermentation are not compromised.

So, work with your nutritionist because no two situations are exactly alike. However, one recommendation remains unchanged: Don’t give up milk. Milk price is the driving force for margins, more so than feed cost. While we recoil from the current high feed prices, this is no time to skimp on rations. Considering recent milk price hikes, any loss of milk production would result in lower net income.

Source: Southwest Farm Press

Midwestern corn will be the subject of one study, wheat will be the focus in the Northwest and a third study will determine the effects on Southern pine forests. The studies will attempt to combine crop and climate researchers from a wide variety of fields and encourage them to find solutions appropriate to specific geographic areas.

"Shifting weather patterns already have had a big effect on US agriculture, and the country needs to prepare for even greater changes, explained Roger Beachy, director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, to AP's Steve Karnowski. Some areas may gain longer growing seasons or suffer more frequent floods, while others may experience more droughts or shorter growing seasons,

Beachy continued, "Different areas will need different solutions. Some areas may gain longer growing seasons or suffer more frequent floods, while others may experience more droughts or shorter growing seasons."

Lois Wright Morton of Iowa State University will lead the corn project. She said the collaboration between climatologists, soil and plant scientists among others will result in researchers asking questions they might never have thought of before.

"We really have assembled what I really think of as the really top scientists in the agricultural arena to address these (issues)," Wright Morton told AP, adding that her team members are not only experts in their fields, they’re willing to learn from others. "That’s a pretty potent combination."

The Southern pine forest research will be headed by Tim Martin, a professor of tree physiology at the University of Florida. Martin will focus on the loblolly pine, which covers 80 percent of the planted forest land in the southeastern US. The pine forests of the South produce more wood products than any others in the country, and pull vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, making them important to the economy and environment, he said.

"Southern forests contain a third of all the sequestered carbon — stored carbon — in all the lower 48 states," Martin told Karnowski. "And every year, Southern forests store enough additional carbon to offset about 13 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the region. So just by virtue of growing, forests take CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in the wood and in the soil."

Sanford Eigenbrode, an entomologist at the University of Idaho, will lead the wheat project and explains that grain crops store less carbon than trees, but they can be managed to maximize the benefit, such as with better tillage practices.

The wheat team will also look at nitrogen fertilizers, which are used heavily in wheat and corn production. When farmers use fertilizers efficiently, they require less, which keeps overhead low. When used inefficiently, he said, fertilizer pollutes water with nitrate runoff and the air with nitrous oxide.

"It’s a much stronger greenhouse gas, molecule by molecule, than is CO2," Eigenbrode said of nitrous oxide. "So if we can learn to use our nitrogen as efficiently as possible we’ll be doing good things for the farmer, the consumer and the climate."

Each of the projects would receive $20 million, according to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The three studies, spread out among some two dozen universities, call for researchers to communicate closely with farmers and foresters to better understand their business decisions and try to improve the odds producers will adopt their recommendations.

Many farmers are skeptical of the idea that human activities cause climate change, but Martin said tries to explain to them the research is still worthwhile. "Regardless of what one may think about the cause, there’s certainly plenty of evidence that climates are changing and those changes can affect our production systems for agriculture," Eigenbrode said. "It’s important for our food security. So as climates change, agriculture has to change."

Source: redOrbit

The proposed program is taking shape, with USDA releasing an update to its traceability plan in January, and a list of approved ID devices and suppliers in February of this year. In September 2010, the agency released its comprehensive plan, and since then took public comments and recommendations from its traceability regulation working group, resulting in the latest revisions. USDA projects the proposed rule on traceability will be published in April 2011, with the final rule published 12 to 15 months later.

In late August last year, the National Institute for Animal Agriculture and the U.S. Animal Health Association held a joint forum on traceability in Denver, with participation from producers, veterinarians, state and federal animal-health officials and industry organizations.

The forum was designed to promote open discussion of the plan, address challenges and build consensus on a path forward. Over the course of the forum, participants reached consensus on a number of issues, including the following:

• There is a significant need for more efficient and effective animal disease traceability in the United States.

• Feeder cattle identification should be required as soon as adequate benchmarks and baselines established indicate that identification of adult animals has been achieved.

• Inexpensive metal “Brite” tags are acceptable as a form of official identification as a baseline, but the option to use electronic identification shall continue to be allowed.

• Brands should be allowed as official identification; provided the two states (origin and destination) have agreement regarding movement and that the brand information provides the original point of origin.

Following the forum, NIAA and USAHA released a white paper titled “Reactions, Solutions and Consensus Joint Strategy Forum on Animal Disease Traceability,” which you can read online. In its revised plan released in January, USDA incorporated many of the recommendations presented in the white paper. Not everyone, however, agrees with those recommendations or the USDA’s plan. R-CALF USA this week distributed a news release titled “Deal breakers in USDA’s new Animal Disease Traceability Framework,” which attacks the decision to eventually require traceability for feeder cattle shipped across state lines as well as for older breeding cattle, and what the release terms “delisting brands from the current list of official identification devices.”

During the August forum, the issue of feeder cattle generated considerable discussion. Several participants expressed concern that requiring identification and records for interstate shipments of feeder cattle from the start would overwhelm the system and producers’ ability to comply. The group generally agreed, however, that a viable animal-disease traceability system eventually will need to include feeder cattle, which account for the bulk of cattle movements and much of the risk for spreading infectious disease. For these reasons, the group recommended a phased approach, allowing time to work the kinks out of the system before incorporating requirements for feeder cattle.

USDA adopted that recommendation, and the updated plan states “To gain support of the industry for the inclusion of the younger beef cattle sector in the official identification requirement when moving interstate, APHIS has established a phased-in approach.” The plan proposes starting with breeding cattle in 2012, assessing progress during 2013 and 2014 and moving toward ID for all cattle moving across state lines by 2015, if various performance standards are met.

As for identification methods, the plan specifies USDA official ear tags as the “de facto or minimum” standard for identification. These can be either visual or electronic tags using a 15-digit animal identification number starting with the U.S. country code of 840.

The plan does not, however, completely decertify brands as an ID method. The report states “The regulation will specify authorized forms of official identification for each species that must be accepted by all States and Tribes. However, we will also allow livestock to be moved between any two States or Tribes with another form of identification (such as branding, for example) as agreed on by animal health officials in the two jurisdictions.” The UDSA’s list of official AIN devices is available online.

Overall, USDA has worked, with participation from industry, to build a plan that is relatively simple, flexible and allows time for implementation and compliance. We’ll all be watching for release of the final plan in April, but success is far from assured. While the plan shifts most implementation responsibilities to states and tribes, it does call for federal funding – $14 million for 2011 – a tough sell in today’s economic climate.

“This information is not a budget request,” the report reads, “as it was not developed through the budget process. Future budget requests will be based on the availability of funds and Administration priorities.”

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

McDonald’s – and many other large companies – are feverishly working to convince consumers their products are environmentally friendly. Many of those programs are significantly reducing CO2 emissions, cutting energy consumption and generally improving the image of participating companies.

McDonald’s commitment to such programs is evident in the fact the company has a vice president of Corporate Responsibility, Bob Langert. Of more importance to you is the fact that Langert, in his quest to make McDonald’s greener, is working closely with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a group of five million members that claims to be the largest privately financed international conservation organization in the world.

In 2009, McDonald’s began reviewing the impact of its supply chain. That’s when they invited WWF to look at what McDonald’s buys, how much it purchases and who it buys from. The WWF performed what was termed a “detailed analysis,” and the beef supply chain became a top priority.

“Beef has its fair share of impacts on the world, and we have a role to play to reduce its impact,” Langert says. “We have done a carbon footprint analysis, and beef rises to the top as the number one priority.”

McDonald’s says the company has completed “a comprehensive Sustainable Land Management Commitment, developed in partnership with World Wildlife Fund, that summarizes our commitment to work with suppliers toward the goal ensuring that agricultural raw materials for our products originate from legal and sustainably managed land resources.”

Specifically, McDonald’s hopes to measure and reduce CO2 emissions from farms, and develop a program to trace and certify sustainable beef in the Amazon to make sure that no beef from deforested areas is used.

Lofty goals, indeed. But beef producers would be wise to listen to McDonald’s. This is a company that has served 100 billion customers since its founding more than 60 years ago, and currently serves 58 million customers every day in more than 32,000 restaurants world-wide. That means nearly one percent of the world’s population visits a McDonald’s everyday!

Numbers like those suggest the company knows more than a little about marketing, and while McDonald’s may be famous for the Big Mac, recent advertising campaigns don’t rely on hamburgers to get customers to walk under the Golden Arches.

Today, McDonald’s doesn’t just sell hamburgers and fries. They sell cool – as in free Wi-Fi, premium-blend coffee, salads, veggie burgers and “really cool” milkshakes.

“We strive to ensure that every step of the McDonald’s supply chain contributes positively to the safety, quality and availability of our final products,” the company says. “We also want our product ingredients to be produced in ways that contribute positively to the development of sustainable agricultural and food manufacturing practices.”

McDonald’s is already “working closely with direct suppliers to continuously improve the practices that impact their employees, their communities, the environment, their own suppliers, and, of course, our customers.”

Further, the company says, their “suppliers are expected to share and apply our vision of sustainable supply to their own suppliers (our indirect suppliers). We also ask them to help us understand industry-wide sustainability challenges and opportunities related to the ingredients they use to make our products.”

Maybe you bristle at the suggestion the beef supply chain needs “cleaning up,” as the WWF suggests, and with good reason. Beef producers can point to their stewardship and environmental awareness as an American success story.

But, McDonald’s is striving to satisfy their modern customers. To do so, the company that is the world’s largest purchaser of beef is asking for your help. They want new assurances about beef quality and the environment. Are we listening?

Source: Drovers CattleNetwork

Cattle prices generally strengthened throughout 2010 reaching current record levels in the first quarter of 2011.  The market is clearly trying to encourage cow-calf producers to rebuild cow herds.  Yet there is no definitive indication that producers are retaining heifers at this time.  Why has the beef industry been so slow to rebuild the cow herd?  The answer is that producers don’t have the expectations yet that supports the investment in saving heifers for cows. 

Producer reaction to the current record prices seems to fall into two categories.  The first is a certain excitement about current price levels combined with a general skepticism that these prices will last.  There is often a perception that the current prices are a short run aberration which will be followed soon by a market correction. This is despite the fact that the supply fundamentals providing much of the current price support have been building and evolving for several years.  Domestic beef demand, though not recovered from recessionary weakness is moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.  Export markets are strong and have every indication of remaining strong.  There is considerable reason to believe that the current market situation is not a short run phenomenon.

The second general producer reaction is that input prices will continue to increase thereby erasing the gains from higher cattle prices.  There seems to be a certain fatalism that no matter what a producer does, there is limited or no profit potential in cattle.  While I agree that input costs are a challenge, there is surely opportunity in record cattle prices.  Certainly high feed prices will likely be a challenge for the foreseeable future and energy costs are rising with all the associated impacts, especially higher fertilizer prices.  However, agricultural producers have always had more opportunity to influence profitability by managing costs than changing market prices for the products they sell and the situation is no different now.  Rising input prices mean that producers must make adjustments; sometimes by changing the level of input use and sometimes by changing the entire production process.  Cattle have enormous flexibility to adjust the production process in the face of changing input costs.  It takes a willingness to think a bit more broadly and recognize that many of the old rules of thumb may not apply anymore.

The basis for cattle industry expansion is solid and I expect the market to continue offering incentives to cow-calf producers in the form of high calf prices.  Eventually, producer expectations will change and producers will make the investment in heifers.  Producers who act sooner rather than later will enjoy more of the value the market is offering now.

Source: Drovers Cattle Network

In a 6 to 5 vote earlier this week – the standards board voted for confining veal calves in crates that do not allow the calves to turn around.

HSUS director Wayne Pacelle said this vote could cause his group to re-launch its ballot initiative campaign that would require veal calves to be raised in cages large enough for them to turn around. The HSUS had agreed to shelve the campaign after the June agreement stated that veal calves must be able to turn around.

Ohio Ag Director Jim Zehringer and State Veterinarian Tony Forshey voted against the veal-confinement standard on Tuesday. The Ohio Veterinary Medical Association also supports allowing calves of all ages room to turn around.

Source: Brownfield Ag News

The sale-day premium, however, isn’t the whole story. The OQBN calves were weaned at least 45 days prior to sale. During these 45 days, most calves will gain about 2 lbs./day. Therefore, the OQBN calves weighed more than if they had been sold at a traditional weaning time.

In addition, the market for 400- to 600-lb. calves has historically been at the yearly low at conventional weaning dates in October and early November. By waiting the additional 45 days, the market improved dramatically this year, adding a substantial dollar value to the OQBN calves as compared to the sale price that these same calves would have brought in October.

Producers need to compare the value of the feed, labor and health costs of the VAC-45 OQBN program to differences in total sale price. In the fall of 2010, most producers sold the OQBN calves for enough more to realize a worthwhile profit above the feed and health costs of the preconditioning program.

Other interesting findings from the OQBN data indicated that age and source verification of all cattle was worth about $1/cwt. The bonus due to age and source verification was stronger (about $2/cwt.) in heavier, older yearling cattle.

Once again, the value of larger lot size was apparent. Lot sizes of 10 calves averaged $8/cwt. more than similar calves sold individually. This advantage increases up to truck-load size lots of 40-60 head where price increases were as much as $12-$13/cwt. as compared to similar cattle sold as singles.

For more information about the OBQN, go to www.oqbn.okstate.edu/.

Source: BEEFmagazine.com

Beef producers can make informed decisions about genetics and marketing beef cattle thanks to specialized testing conducted by the Center for Beef Excellence, Department of Agriculture and Livestock Evaluation Center.  

For the second year, genetic marker testing will be conducted on all performance tested bulls selling in the 38th annual Performance Tested Bull Sale. The sale is set for noon Friday, March 25, at the Livestock Evaluation Center in Pennsylvania Furnace, Centre County.  

“The Center for Beef Excellence is committed to finding ways to help Pennsylvania beef producers operate successful, profitable business,” said Willard Lemaster, the center’s executive director. “Offering this advanced technology for the second year provides producers another tool to improve and market the genetics in their herds, which in turn will help boost their bottom lines.”

The new genetic profile will complement information measured during the test, including weaning and yearling weights, feed efficiency, rate of gain and scrotal circumference.  

The advanced technology studies the animals’ genes. Genes with economically important traits provide breeding values that can be used in calculating expected progeny differences, or EPDs, specific to each breed. EPDs provide estimates of the genetic value of an animal as a parent.  

Lemaster added that the new genomic profiles can help producers make informed decisions when selecting new genetics and marketing the offspring.    

Each beef breed association has its own tests and genetic profiles, and Lemaster recommends producers contact the associations to determine which is appropriate for their specific breeding programs.  

“We are pleased to partner in the bull testing program and hope these genetic tests will offer new opportunities for producers and their herds,” said Lemaster.    

For more information about Pennsylvania’s beef industry or the Center for Beef Excellence, contact Lemaster at 717-705-1689 or Lemaster@beefexcellence.com.  

Media contact: Jean Kummer, 717-787-5085: jkummer@state.pa.us

Berger held a cow-calf profitability meeting in Oshkosh, NE, recently, to teach producers how to determine if their ranching operations are profitable. “I want to talk about the cost of production because we don't always know what it costs to produce a pound of beef,” Berger told the group. “If we did, it might be pretty sobering for some people.

“Every decision in the cow-calf business can be evaluated by determining the unit cost of production,” Berger continued. “The herd's total cost divided by the total pounds produced is the unit cost of production,” he said. “It is important for producers to ask themselves, ‘What did it cost me per pound of beef produced?'”

Profitable ranches have good reproductive rates and calf growth, which keep the costs per pound of beef produced in check, he continued. Typically, the ranches with the lowest unit cost of production are the most profitable, but he also showed an example where that wasn't the case. In his example, the first ranch sold 450-pound calves that cost $1.40 per hundredweight (cwt) to produce. The calves were sold for an average of $1.60/cwt., which was a profit of $90 per head. The second ranch had 550 calves that cost $1.25/cwt to produce. Those calves sold for an average of $1.40/cwt., which was a profit of $82.50 per head.

“The unit cost of production is a benchmark tool, but every operation will have different tools,” Berger explained. “However, you are still competing against them. You need to determine who has the lowest cost of production, and see how they are able to produce beef cheaper.”

Berger cautioned the group about making generalities. “You need to know your actual cost of production to determine if you are making a profit,” he explained. The ranch needs to be broken down into separate enterprises – like an oil, gas, water, or wind business, the cow-calf operation, the hay operation, the stocker-feeder business and the land business. Once a producer does that, fair market value needs to be charged for each enterprise.

“If you have a hay business,” Berger explained, “you need to figure a cost per ton of hay delivered, and the cow-calf operation needs to be charged for the hay they use. If land could be rented out at $30 per head per month, then the land cost needs to be charged to the cattle. The object is to determine which enterprises within the operation are making money, and which aren't. Producers need to determine if they are making enough money to run the cattle themselves, or if they would be more profitable taking in cattle.”

Although most ranchers are in the business because they enjoy cattle, Berger said producers need to look at the value of their land, and determine what they would have if they leased the ranch out. “That land has value,” he explained. “If they lease the ranch out, they wouldn't be feeding cattle in a blizzard, or checking calving cows at 2 a.m.”

Berger said producers with a hay business also need to determine what someone would charge to come and put up hay for them. “The hay business has value, and if a producer has a meadow, it also has some value besides being put up as hay,” he explained.

The key to operating a profitable business is to identify the profitable segments within the ranch, and eliminate the costly ones, Berger said.

Based on studies, Berger said feed expenses are about 65 percent of the annual costs of maintaining cattle. “Producers need to determine how to reduce feed costs, and at the same time, maintain the cow's productivity,” he said. “Producers also need to have a low overhead. Buying $150,000 tractors and $50,000 pickups are expensive when the cow has to pay for it,” he continued.

Berger urged producers to become better grass farmers. “The better you can become at growing grass, the more profitable you will become at harvesting grass effectively,” he explained.

Feeding hay is expensive. Research has shown highly profitable herds tend to feed less hay, Berger said. “We have seen highly profitable herds that are $40 per cow ranches, compared to ranches that feed a lot of hay that are $166 per cow. Some research conducted by the University of Nebraska has shown the system with the greatest feed costs – for example, fed the most hay – had the lowest returns per calf in all scenarios,” he said.

“I always hear the saying, ‘If it rusts, rots or depreciates, try to own as little of it as possible,'” Berger said.

He also offered producers some final thoughts. “Try to match the enterprises on the ranch to the resources you have available,” he explained. “Cow-calf operations don't work in all areas,” he noted, as an example. “Also, producers need to identify their competitive advantage, think in terms of systems, and develop a marketing and risk management plan that can be adjusted as conditions change.”

Berger said he is willing to assist ranchers with conducting a whole ranch analysis or a unit cost of production for enterprises within the ranch operation. For more information, Berger can be contacted at 308-235-3122, or by e-mail at aberger2@unl.edu.

Source: Tri-State Livestock News

The Senate is expected to debate the House’s continuing resolution soon.

The cuts would be difficult enough for land-grant universities and Extension to absorb but are doubly frustrating for officials because of their timing. Adding to the pressure: coming halfway through the fiscal year, the cut to programs (approximately 10 percent) must be made over six months instead of a full year.

On Tuesday, Delta Farm Press spoke with Paul Coreil at the LSU AgCenter about the budget cuts. Coreil, Vice Chancellor and Director of the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, said Congress needs to understand the full impact such cuts will have. Among his comments:

How will this affect the AgCenter, Extension and university research?

“It isn’t a very complicated issue. We’re in the middle of a fiscal year and all the money has been allocated. All the federal funds I get for Extension are in salaries for agents and specialists that are in the field, working today.

“We’ve got to cut 10 percent from there. I don’t know where we’ll get it.

“This was an unexpected mid-year cut. Here we are getting ready for the growing season and we have specialists and agents working with growers – and their salaries are dependent on the federal funds. How do you manage that when you have people hired out in the community working with farmers?

“These are formula funds that we’ve been getting and rely on – they’re recurring. If the cuts have to come, we need time to consider how to implement them. There’s no trick-bag to use when there are people already getting paid those funds. It isn’t like there’s money sitting in a drawer here that I can just send back and say ‘the cut has been made.’

“We work with farmers, ranchers and 4-H programs for kids all over this state. These salary dollars are important. State funds have already been cut drastically and the federal funds are critical.

“And if cuts must be made, they need to be made in a way that makes sense. We don’t need to be sitting here wondering how in the world we’ll send money back after it’s already been dedicated and allocated.”

Can you explain why this came down mid-fiscal year?

“You have to ask congressional membership that question.

“But for a manager trying to run a quality program to help producers and communities, it causes quite a shock to the system. Everyone is starting to understand these cuts will have an immediate impact and the options we have are limited.

“We must work very closely with the congressional delegation so they understand the consequences of this type of a mid-year reduction. We’ve already made commitments.

“The ‘why’ of this, is something I can’t answer. But I can tell you about the consequences. That’s why there’s so much turmoil and concern regarding the timing and lack of planning we’re being provided.”

Where is the pressure to cut mostly coming from?

“From what I read, this is largely a result of the November election and changes that took place in Congress. Regardless of party, though, the message to them is the same: this will have an impact on parishes in Louisiana and other states’ counties that have strong Extension programs.

“The federal funds for Smith-Lever are what we stand on to get matches from our state legislature and local government. We get significant support from the county governments for these offices.

“Everyone needs to step up and do their part – federal, state and local. Of those three legs of the stool, if one makes massive reductions mid-year it shakes everything up. We have a lot of local and state elected officials that are very concerned about this. There’s only around six months left in the fiscal year and the dollars have been dedicated.”
 

On past cuts, timing and being able to plan properly…

“In the past, reductions have come and we’ve dealt with them. But you need time to reorganize priorities, reduce or eliminate programs and give proper notice to people; make sure the local communities understand the consequences of the cuts. With enough time, those things can be done properly.

“But this move puts us in a very precarious situation. We don’t have a lot of options to make this at least appear to be something we’re doing with organization and a lot of thought.

“There’s a lot of concern in the calls I’m getting from constituents and ag leaders on this. I’m sure they’re making their views known to the congressional delegation, as well.”

Have you gotten any response from the Louisiana or Mid-South delegation on this? Or is it still early days?

“It’s still early. The vote on this was only taken last Friday (Feb 18).

“But I think the constituency is letting them know of their concerns. And it’s being expressed, I think, widely.

“Hopefully, by March 4, something a bit more workable will arise.”

Have you been in contact with your counterparts in neighboring states?

“Yes, we’ve had conference calls – throughout the country and the South. Everyone has the same dilemma with this mid-year cut.

“The sentiments are the same. We’ve all already reduced our staffs and budgets over the last several years. And we’ve used the federal funds to try and maintain the quality of the Mid-South programs.

“The Mid-South has already downsized and cut to the bone. We’re really down to our base priorities even without this cut.

“The thing concerning a lot of people is these base funds – Smith-Lever for Extension, Hatch Act for research, and a couple of other solid funding lines – are of the highest priority in all states. Those are the acts of Congress that have been providing the base funds we get.

“We match those funds at the local and state level – about six-to-one in Louisiana. And in the other states it’s probably at that level, or higher.

“Again, everyone is doing their part. We use those federal funds to justify and convince local governments and state legislators to give us dollars. It’s been a three-way partnership.”
 

Any rumblings about the 2012 fiscal year budget that begins in October?

“Yes, we’re hearing rumblings. President Obama has put out his proposed budget and it has a 5 percent cut for research and Extension.

“But because of the debate over the 2011 budget, we haven’t had a whole lot of time to spend on 2012.”

Anything else you want our readers to know?

“The Cooperative Extension Service, the experiment stations and land-grants are dedicated to helping maintain the economic activity in agriculture. I’m very proud to be a part of the land-grants.

“With all the challenges we see -- shortages, lack of stockpiles of corn and commodities appearing that they’ll be so much more important in the coming decades -- we need good research-based information to be applied in the field. That’s a good investment, the basis of a society having a good, abundant, safe, affordable food supply.

“It would be wise for the United States to maintain its leadership in ag production. And research and Extension has made it so secure. But it appears that security is about to become much more of a challenge.

“As there are more and more people, they’ll need more and more food. And as prices go up, we’ll need to be more efficient and have higher yields.

“This is a good investment. And it’s an investment that pays off for everyone.

“We need to rethink how we look at agriculture. It needs to rise to the top as critical to the welfare and stability of our country.

“Congress needs to really think through these cuts. The basis for our quality of life is really an abundant food supply.”
 

Source: Delta Farm Press

Furthermore, the report's primary publicized finding was livestock production accounts for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, the statistics cited by “Livestock's Long Shadow” differ significantly from those calculated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 2009, the EPA said that the vast majority of GHG emissions come from the use of fossil fuels and electricity, not livestock.

Frank Mitloehner, an internationally-renowned authority for agricultural air quality, animal-environmental interactions and environmental engineering, is an associate professor and air quality specialist in Cooperative Extension at the University of California-Davis, and he was one of the researchers who worked to disprove the UN report. In fact, his findings helped to discover that the claims made about global livestock production are not relevant to the U.S. In fact, they proved that U.S. agriculture sector accounts for only 5.8 percent of annual U.S. GHG emissions.

Mitloehner is committed to sharing his findings and clearing the air on cattle and air quality.

“When the UN report came out in 2006, nobody doubted it,” said Mitloehner. “Unfortunately, the report is referenced everywhere, and it's a flawed study. Livestock in developed countries has relatively small GHG contributions, and the report's findings of 18 percent is an international number, not one that is representative of the U.S. GHG emissions contributed by large transportation, energy and industry dwarf that of agriculture.”

He explained that in developing countries, livestock can be a dominant contributor to the GHG portfolio due to deforestation, which inflates the number by one-third. Many are surprised to learn that over the last 20 years, the U.S. has had a net increase of forest land by 20 percent. In addition, comparing livestock to transportation is inappropriate, he added, because the report doesn't even include transportation numbers.

“Today the authors of the UN study say the U.S. is a model for livestock production around the world,” said Mitloehner, who appreciates the admission but believes the damage is already done for livestock producers. “Meatless Mondays is in the news a lot. San Francisco has declared Monday to be meatless in the city because they are trying to save the planet. Paul McCartney is urging places like France and India to do the same.”

Obviously, the trend is growing, but Mitloehner hopes to share findings from his report, “Shrinking The Shadow,” to offset the damage done by the UN report.

“When I came to California in 2002, it was bizarre how much cattle were in the news in regards to air quality,” he said. “California is a bit hysterical about air pollution anyway; it's home to the worst quality of air in the country (Silicone Valley). In California, whether you have a factory, a walnut farm or a dairy, you have to have the same air permits. Who cares what happens in California? Well, my reality is dealing with urban conflict every day, which turns into regulatory pressures and lawsuits. Whatever is established here sets a precedent for other states.”

One thing he discovered was a list of top 25 smog-forming pollutants that said dairy was the number one source of smog in California, followed second by trucks. Based on the emission inventory, California courts wanted to cover up lagoons to capture the gases. The dairy industry was involved in the lawsuit, and the court decided more research was needed.

“I looked into this and found the research was from 1938 and referenced methane, which is not smog-forming, it's a GHG,” explained Mitloehner. “This is problematic in respect to dairy cows.”

His research team looked at liquid manure, solids, feedstuffs and equipment to evaluate the true environmental impact from a dairy. The National Air Emission Monitoring Study conducted by the EPA was recently completed, and Mitloehner said, “We were blown away to see how little the dairy farm produced.”

An important finding in the study shows that fermented feed like corn silage has a greater impact on air quality.

“Manure wants to stay in liquid form; it won't go into the gas phase,” said Mitloehner. “Lagoons are actually the least smog-forming in comparison. Ten to 25 percent of dry matter in silage is lost every time the face of the pile is broken and new silage is exposed to the air and sun.”

Mitloehner said the big picture is that U.S. agriculture is a model for the rest of the world to follow because of its growing efficiency and environmental stewardship. He predicted the next focus for activists will be on calf-raising, which is where he's focusing his research on right now.

“My goal is to clear the air on cattle's impact on climate change and air quality,” he concluded. And, Mitloehner's commitment to sharing that message is making an impact. He encourages others to share the good news of U.S. agriculture and the environment with others, as well.

Source: Tri-State Livestock News

What a difference a year makes - a $1 billion jump in beef export value

The global economic downturn of 2009 was particularly hard on beef exports - not only for the United States, but for all exporting countries. But despite an overall drop in global demand, U.S. beef maintained or increased its market share in most key markets and was well-positioned for a rebound in 2010.

"We knew the groundwork was in place for an excellent recovery in 2010," says USMEF President and CEO Philip Seng. "But even the most optimistic forecasts underestimated the degree to which our beef exports would bounce back. Increasing beef export value by almost one-third, and nearly $1 billion, is a critical achievement for the U.S. beef industry and a substantial boost for U.S. producers."

Export value equated to $153.09 per head of fed slaughter, which is up 22 percent from 2009 and is 12 percent higher than in 2003. Nearly 12 percent of total beef production was exported, compared to less than 10 percent in 2009.

Mexico was the only major destination for U.S. beef to show a decline in 2010, and even that market is showing substantial improvement. For the year, beef exports to Mexico were down 15 percent in volume (545.9 million pounds) and 10 percent in value ($819.1 million). For the third consecutive month, December exports to Mexico exceeded their 2009 value - jumping by more than 15 percent to $83.6 million.
 

• Exports to Canada increased 7 percent in volume (337.7 million pounds) and 15 percent in value ($733.4 million - a new record) over 2009. Canada remains the No. 2 market for U.S. beef in both volume and value.

• Japan is the third-largest market for U.S. beef, but is gaining ground quickly in terms of value. In 2010, exports to Japan increased by 36 percent in both volume (274.6 million pounds) and value ($639.5 million).

• South Korea represents one of the great turnaround stories of 2010, with exports more than doubling in volume (248.6 million pounds) and climbing by 140 percent in value ($517.9 million).

• Exports to Russia also doubled in volume to almost 126.7 million pounds and nearly quadrupled in value to a record $152.4 million. The surge in value was due to a tremendous increase in muscle cut exports to Russia, which grew by more than 500 percent. But variety meat exports to Russia also performed well, increasing by 26 percent in volume and 90 percent in value.

• A similar scenario took place in the Middle East, where variety meat exports jumped by 19 percent in volume and 40 percent in value, but muscle cut exports rose by 87 percent and 113 percent, respectively. In total, exports to the region increased by 36 percent in volume (296.5 million pounds) and 77 percent in value ($261.2 million - a new record).

• Taiwan shattered its previous record for export value by more than 50 percent, reaching $216.3 million. The market has cooled substantially in January and February, however, due to market access restrictions.

• Despite a down year for Vietnam, the ASEAN region posted an export value record of $232.3 million, led by strong results in Indonesia and the Philippines.

• Exports to Hong Kong also set a value record of $158.2 million, an increase of 87 percent over 2009.

• In the first full-year of a duty-free quota in the European Union, exports increased substantially. Through November, high-quality beef exported under the quota totaled 23.4 million pounds valued at just under $100 million.

• U.S. beef exports also set new records in the Caribbean and Central-South America regions.

Complete export results for all markets are available online.

For more information about your beef checkoff investment in foreign marketing programs, visit MyBeefCheckoff.com.
 

Source: Western Farm Press

Dennis Avery, director of the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., told the crowd that as the world's population increases in wealth and size, farmers and ranchers will have to double global food production within 40 years.

"This is a bigger challenge than Dr. Norman Borlaug faced when he launched the Green Revolution in the 1960s," Avery said. "Since we already farm 37 percent of the Earth's land area, we cannot double food production simply by plowing more land and using more of today's inputs.

"We must find new ways to add yield and productivity on the best land. "

Avery said the push for grass-fed beef, organic foods and trying to grow a fuel supply with biofuels will become less popular.

Confinement feeding produces more meat per pound of feed, is kinder to animals and puts less carbon into the air than grass-fed beef, he said. Organic farming is not conservation-friendly and biofuels divert too much good land to produce tiny amounts of high-cost fuel, he said.

"During this period, farmers and ranchers must do something they have never done: Tell urbanites why they farm differently from their grandfathers--to feed the hungry even as we save land for nature."

Brent Auvermann, Ph.D., Texas AgriLife Extension Service environmental systems specialist, followed Avery with a discussion of agriculture's "carbon footprint" and the role carbon plays in the production of beef.

"Over the past 10 years, we've seen a shift in the terms the environmental community used to lead us into conversations about the health of the ecosphere, which is simply the air, water, soil and the living organisms that make their homes there," Auvermann said.

Early on, the talk was of sustainability--economic, environmental and social, he said. But no one learned to measure sustainability; it was an abstraction.

Next came the term "global warming potential," used to refer to the magnitude of the stress human activities were imposing on the world's climate.

"Global warming potential wasn't really a case of air pollution until Congress and the EPA got hold of it and the Supreme Court gave them elbow room," Auvermann said. "It didn't include other considerations like water quality or natural resource availability, either."

And, as global warming potential has lost its hold on the public's imagination, it has now been replaced by "ecological footprint," referring to the carrying capacity of an ecosystem, Auvermann said.

The ecological footprint is essentially an accounting procedure that adds up all the land and sea areas required to supply resources and assimilate wastes and divides by the number of people supported to get the per capita footprint.

"If we divide the global ecologically productive area by the global population, we get the global average of 4.7 acres available to each person on the Earth," he said. That means that some nations like Canada have room to grow, but that there are billions of people living in countries with far less bio-capacity than the global average.

The ecological footprint is derived from energy, cropland, pasture, sea space, forest land, built area and hydroelectric. The biggest portion of that is the energy footprint, Auvermann said. And that is where the carbon comes in.

The energy footprint is the area of land, predominately forest land, required to sequester the carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion, he said. So when speaking of the carbon footprint, it is actually a subset of the total ecological footprint.

A production and environmental quality model for beef production shows how enhancing product quality, increasing efficiency or reducing emissions is deeply embedded in a larger system characterized by feedback, time variation, human agency and mutual dependence, Auvermann said.

This life-cycle analysis shows how a product that hits the plate is the product of just about everything else involved in its production, including the resources consumed, the machinery built to process it, and all the labor, processes and resources required to dispose of the wastes within the manufacturing and supply chain, he said.

"While the whole process is complicated, the idea underneath it all is pretty simple and appealing: We can't just pretend that a product's environmental footprint is limited to the waste-disposal processes immediately downstream from it in the supply chain. There's more to it than that."

Auvermann said some of the carbon-intensive items involved in feeding cattle in confinement are the corn, natural gas used to manufacture nitrogen fertilizer, diesel fuel to rail corn from the Midwest and the coal or natural gas to produce electricity for irrigation pumps.

"The carbon footprint is but one piece of a much broader ecological footprint, but in many cases it is the dominant piece," he said. "These sustainability metrics need to be refined on the basis of more detailed knowledge and greater attention to site-specific influences."

Jim MacDonald, Ph.D., AgriLife Research beef cattle nutritionist, followed Auvermann by saying society is increasingly concerned about the impacts of animal production practices on the environment, human health and animal health.

This concern has resulted in increased monitoring and proposed regulations by the government, with special attention being paid to ammonia, greenhouse gasses and water quality. In the past five years, production practices such as the use of implants, ionophores, beta-agonists and antimicrobial agents have been questioned.

"One of the best things we can tell consumers is what impact the production practices we've adopted had," he said. "Reality is that if you were to tell us that we could no longer use technology in the beef industry, it would change the way we formulate diets."

These technologies have contributed to improved animal performance over the past 30 years by increasing dietary energy concentration, weight gain and carcass weight with marginal increases in dry matter intake, MacDonald said.

"The improvements in feed efficiency observed over this time period likely would not have been possible without the adoption of growth-enhancing technologies," he said.

"While the emission of ammonia and greenhouse gasses produced per head have remained stable, the emissions have been reduced when expressed on per pound of carcass weight," he said.

"Therefore, we conclude that the use of growth-enhancing technologies is vital in reducing the carbon footprint of a serving of beef."

Taking away one or more of the technologies would mean a loss of 150 pounds per animal, a loss of average daily gain and some feed efficiency, therefore costing more to produce a pound of gain.

The key here is that it is absolutely inappropriate to report these things on a per-head basis, MacDonald said.

"When you report on per pound of hot carcass weight, taking into account the improvement in efficiencies, the carbon footprint of that steak is less today than it was 30 years ago," he said.

"We make money in this industry by adding weight. We are more environmental friendly by adding weight. We are producing more with less," MacDonald said.

Those technologies allowed producers to reduce manure production 30 to 45 percent; ammonia losses decreased 11 to 14 percent; methane production decreased 12 to 30 percent depending on technologies used.

"So there is no doubt in my mind if you are interested in environmentally friendly beef, you would accept the use of technology in the feedlot," he said.

A constant beef supply requires fewer head therefore fewer cows. The animal population has been reduced, as has the feed energy, land use, water use, fossil fuel energy needed, methane, nitrous oxide and total carbon footprint, MacDonald said.

"We have made progress in terms of our environmental footprint. It's a mistake to allow components of society to try to force us to take away the very technology that has allowed us to do this."

Perhaps the most convincing piece of information is that over the past 30 years, the greenhouse gases per 10-ounce steak has dramatically decreased, MacDonald said.

"Don't let these issues be decided for you," he said. "The decisions that are being made are not being made based on science, but rather emotion. The beef industry has been silent far too long on these issues."

Source: High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal

Several 2011 policy resolutions were approved including policy on immigration; food safety; marketing; cattle health; and federal lands. NCBA President Steve Foglesong said the policies established are driven by grassroots cattlemen and women.

“Our members chart the course for our organization and for the entire beef industry. This organization is producer-owned and member driven,” said Foglesong. “As it has been since 1898, our members decide our policy positions that are all geared toward sustaining this industry for future generations.”

NCBA members voted to establish policy on immigration reform in order to represent producers living along the border. The resolution calls for full authority for federal agencies as well as state and local authorities to secure the border, including the suspension of all pending legislation and funding for federal-land designations along the border. Federally-owned lands along the border with certain designations such as “wilderness areas” provide unfettered access for illegal cross-border activities by restricting the motorized access of federal agents responsible for patrolling the land.

Regarding cattle health, NCBA’s grassroots membership called for NCBA staff to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Congress to provide full funding for purposes of indemnification for brucellosis, tuberculosis, foot and mouth disease and emergency diseases.

Members strengthened their commitment to pre-harvest food safety interventions by supporting a multi-disciplinary approach to identify and develop interventions along the entire food chain to address key knowledge hurdles and develop targeted solutions. Along those lines, members voted to support research to determine the critical virulence factors of non O157 shiga toxin-producing E. coli associated with human illness. Additionally, NCBA continues to support collaborative food safety research to make beef an even safer product.

NCBA members approved a resolution to address the bankruptcy of Eastern Livestock. The membership directed NCBA staff to work aggressively with members of Congress and appropriate federal agencies to immediately make funds available at low interest or no interest to assist producers and firms that were directly impacted.

NCBA sent letters to the USDA and the Small Business Administration in December regarding assistance to producers and firms financially impacted by the Eastern issue. To-date, USDA has not responded to the letter or offered financial assistance to producers.

According to Colin Woodall, NCBA vice-president of government affairs, NCBA members also directed his team in Washington to work with the relevant congressional committees to ask for a congressional oversight hearing into the USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration’s audits and bonding of all cattle auction markets and dealers.

Woodall said the current federal laws and regulations and the judiciary’s interpretation of the federal grazing permit administration have created a malfunctioning system that allows radical environmental groups to stymie on-the-ground management. He said many NCBA members depend on federal lands to graze their livestock and make a living for their families. Woodall said NCBA is committed to pushing for a common sense approach to the management of public lands.

“This is the bread and butter of our organization. This is truly where the magic happens so-to-speak,” Woodall said. “Our members take the time away from their operations and their families to travel here and debate important issues affecting the U.S. beef cattle industry. They then put it on paper. When we are fighting for U.S. cattlemen and women in Washington, D.C., we use these policy positions as our roadmap.”

Source: Southeast Farm Press

The question then arises of how best to get a calf from 550-pounds to 1,000-pounds outside of a feedlot and without much corn in the ration. Actually, there are many different ways to accomplish this and it has been happening for years. With few exceptions, the cheapest way to add weight outside of a feedlot usually involves the calf harvesting the feed rather than man harvesting the feed and then feeding it to the calves.

Winter pasture grazing in California and parts of the South are one option for producers in those areas. Wheat pastures have long been a heavily-utilized resource to add weight to calves. This resource is heavily-dependent upon adequate fall- and winter-moisture, but when that moisture is there, few resources can compete to add weight more economically than on wheat pastures.

Corn stalk grazing is another valuable and often under utilized resource for adding weight to calves. In many parts of the country, stalks are disked under rather than being grazed. Research at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has shown that calves can gain about 1 pound per day on stocks with no supplement, or with a protein supplement gains can increase to 1.5-1.75 pounds per day. Nebraska research has also shown that there is no adverse effects on subsequent crop yields from corn stalk grazing. Depending upon the initial weight of the calf and upon the daily gain and length of the grazing period, calves will likely weigh between 600-850 pounds in the spring of the year.

In the past, the lighter end of these calves probably found their way to summer grazing programs, but the heavier end likely went into the feedlot. It would seem now that even these heavier calves will be more profitable if they can spend some additional time on summer grass before going to the feedlot.

In November, I wrote a column about the economic versus financial cost of a backgrounding program. As a quick refresher, I stated that most of the time when I value all feed resources at market price and charge for labor, yardage, interest and other costs, then generally I conclude that backgrounding is not profitable. However, I noted that many of you may have feed resources that really are valued less than my assumed market price and your other costs may be substantially less than what I assumed. Hence, backgrounding may be profitable for you. However, I now want to illustrate how higher corn prices and higher cost of gain in the feedlot is altering the economics of backgrounding.

I am going to assume a background program involves calves gaining 2.0 pounds per day for 150 days. The ration I used was an alfalfa/grass hay and corn grain ration, where 16.5 pounds of hay and 5 pounds of corn are fed each day to a 550-pound calf. The end weight of the calf would be 850 pounds. This ration is actually quite expensive on a cost per pound of gain basis. I then assume that calves are placed on summer grass for 120 days at 1.5 pounds per day and gain an additional 180 pounds to come off grass weighing 1,030 pounds. As I mentioned, this is a fairly costly winter ration and the projected gains for the summer are conservative. I charged market price for the hay and corn and used the Northwest Nebraska grazing rental rate to value the grazing. I also included a charge for yardage, veterinary supplies, interest on the cattle, and death loss.

I evaluated this background-grazing program over three different time periods and compared the total cost of gain to the total cost of gain in a feedlot for the same time period. The three time periods are: 1) 2004-2006; 2) 2007-2010; and 3) fall 2010/winter 2011. During the 2004-06 time period, corn prices in Omaha, NE averaged $2.41 per bushel and the total cost of gain in a feedlot was projected at $0.52 per pound of gain. The total cost of gain for the background-grazing program was $0.65 per pound. That is why during this time period, and for years before that when corn was relatively cheap compared to forages, the industry pushed for heavier weaning weights and calves were sent directly to the feedlots where cost of gain were cheaper.

In the 2007-10 time period, Omaha, NE corn price averaged $4.40 per bushel and feedlot cost of gain was projected at $0.74 per pound of gain. During that time period the total cost of gain for the background-grazing program would have averaged $0.75 per pound of gain; essentially equal to feedlot total cost of gain. Under this scenario, I am sure many producers could have used a less expensive winter background ration and had a lower total cost of gain.

With prices over the last four months, corn has averaged $5.42 per bushel and total feedlot cost of gain is projected to be $0.89 per pound of gain. With fall hay prices and projected prices for 2011 grazing, I project a total cost of gain for the background-grazing program of $0.81 per pound.

The point I want to make is this: if a fairly expensive background-summer grazing program costs less to add weight to calves than a feedlot, then there must be a number of different yearling systems that will fit almost any resource scenario and that will now be more profitable than sending lighter calves directly to the feedlot.

Source: Tri-State Livestock News

The five-step rating system, which was enacted in coordination with the nonprofit Global Animal Partnership, uses a tiered system starting at step 1 (animals aren’t kept in cages, crates or crowded) to the highest tier - where animals spend their entire lives on the same farm. Color-coded tags will let shoppers know how various products are rated. Check out a complete list of standards for cattle, chickens and pigs here.

Officials say the system will help shoppers make more informed choices while rewarding producers who have made the biggest strides in animal welfare.

“Everybody is encouraged to really embrace continuous improvement in animal agriculture, which is really the singular aim of the Global Animal Partnership,” said Miyun Park, the group’s executive director.

Whole Foods founder John Mackey serves on the board of the nonprofit group, which is comprised of farmers, retailers, scientists, and animal rights groups to promote animal welfare.

The group developed the ratings system and worked on a pilot program with Whole Foods over the last two years.

Park said that she’s having conversations with other retailers about the ratings system.

Whole Foods President and Chief Operating Officer A.C. Gallo called it “one of the single most impactful programs” the company has ever implemented.

“Our customers have long been asking for information on the raising practices on the farms and ranches that provide products to our stores,” Gallo said in a release.

Officials say it’s a new level of transparency for the natural foods grocer.

“In my 20 years of working with ranchers and farmers, this is the largest commitment to improving farm animal welfare that I have seen. Producers need to meet approximately 100 requirements to get a Step 1 certification, so achieving the first level is a remarkable accomplishment,” said Anne Malleau, Whole Foods global animal production and welfare coordinator

Of course, the grocer already has its own longstanding meat standards. For instance, animals must be raised on vegetarian diets without antibiotics or growth hormones.

According to the company, all fresh and pre-packaged beef, pork and chicken will be rated by May 9.

And while the program is starting with those groups (which make up a majority of sales), eventually all of Whole Foods meats will be rated under the new system, said Steve Hellmann, meat coordinator for the grocer’s southwest region.

“Our goal is to affect as many farm animal lives as possible,” Hellmann said.
 

Source: statesman.com

“The results of this study have the potential to boost the health benefits of beef and help change consumers’ perception about eating beef,” said the center’s executive director, Willard Lemaster. “If beef is considered the healthiest protein option, consumption will increase, which will in turn increase profitability for producers.”

The center is partnering with Dr. Jay Pettegrew of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Masonic Village Farm in Elizabethtown, Lancaster County, to conduct a year-long study on a select group of the farm’s cattle.

Pettegrew’s research is based on scientific data showing foods high in saturated fatty acids lead to cardiovascular disease, as is the perception with consuming beef. Reducing those acids and increasing polyunsaturated fatty acids, considered to be more healthful, may produce a healthier product, low in saturated fat.

Studies show meat from grass-fed cattle tends to be higher in polyunsaturated fatty acids and therefore perceived as healthier, as compared to meat from traditional grain-fed feed lot systems, which is the most common type of production in Pennsylvania.

Pettegrew will study beef cattle sire and dam families to determine if the conversion of the two types of fatty acids is different in genetic strains of cattle. If the research proves to be true, the center will use the results to help producers with feed lots develop feed rations using a variety of different by-products to efficiently help increase polyunsaturated fats in the meat.

As the study progresses, the center will provide updates on the findings. For more information on the study or about Pennsylvania’s beef industry, contact Lemaster at 717-425-5545 or Lemaster@beefexcellence.com.

For more information about the Center for Beef Excellence, visit the website at www.beefexcellence.org.

Media contact: Jean Kummer, 717-787-5085; jkummer@state.pa.us

“Handling beef cattle properly is essential for healthy animals, safer for the producers, and makes record keeping much easier,” said Willard Lemaster, executive director of the Center for Beef Excellence. “The center is pleased to be able to offer our producers access to this portable equipment that can help boost their bottom lines.” 

Purchased with a grant through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the equipment includes panels, gates, a squeeze chute, palpation cage, platform digital scale with display, and an electronic identification tag reader mounted on a trailer for easy transportation. 

“We hope producers will make use of the equipment for vaccinating, dehorning or any other type of herd health care,” said Lemaster.   

Lemaster added the equipment can help make backgrounding beef calves easier for producers. Vaccinating calves, weaning them from the cows for 30-45 days and training them to eat feed increases market weight, adding value. 

While any Pennsylvania producer can use the equipment, priority is given to those in Bedford, Bradford, Fayette, Greene and Somerset counties based on the grant requirements. Producers can pick up the equipment and haul it themselves, or it can be delivered for a transportation fee.

Producers interested in using the equipment should contact Lemaster at 717-425-5545 or Lemaster@beefexcellence.com to check availability and reserve dates to keep the equipment. For more information about the Center for Beef Excellence, visit the website at www.beefexcellence.org.  

Media contact: Jean Kummer, 717-787-5085; jkummer@state.pa.us

“The goal of this study is to find alternative ways for beef producers to feed cattle profitably,” said J. Willard Lemaster, executive director for the Center for Beef Excellence. “By partnering with Penn State’s beef production class, the project will also help the students, our future industry leaders, gain real-life experience in analyzing different production practices.”

As part of the center’s Integrated Resource Management, or IRM, program, Lemaster and university faculty will teach the students about the profitability and performance measurement program called Standardized Performance Analysis, or SPA.

As part of a semester-long research project, the students will develop an SPA for two beef operations that are incorporating several new production concepts. The farms will add stockers – 500-900 pound animals – into a cow-calf enterprise, and convert hay ground to pasture ground using the stockers to harvest the forage rather than making hay. The students will analyze the subsequent purchase of winter forage needs in the absence of hay making.

The center and faculty will assess the students’ findings and make recommendations to the participating producers. The information will also be used to help other Pennsylvania beef operations.

The center reminds beef producers that a maximum of $3,000 is available for up to 12 farms to develop their own on-farm IRM team. Funding is available for 18 months of the IRM team operation and may be used to reimburse team members or cover up to 50 percent of expenses incurred in identifying solutions to farm problems.

A mentor will be provided to help coordinate each team meeting and provide input. Teams are encouraged to meet monthly or bimonthly to evaluate the operation, set goals and develop action plans for targeted areas, and assess progress.

Applications for IRM teams are now being accepted by contacting the center at 717-425-5545, or via e-mail at Lemaster@beefexcellence.com. IRM seminars and training sessions for all interested producers will be coordinated through the center.

For more information about the Center for Beef Excellence, visit the website at www.beefexcellence.org.

Media contact: Jean Kummer, 717-787-5085; jkummer@state.pa.us
 

“A strong traceability system will help Canadian producers get the premium prices their top-quality products deserve around the world,” says Ag Minister Gerry Ritz. “With RFID technology, we’ll be better able to trace an animal, which is not only important to human and animal welfare but also key to the sustainability of the Canadian livestock industry as a whole.”

Darcy Eddleston, Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA) chair, says CCIA worked with government to move forward on traceability and believes delisting the bar-coded tag will advance traceability initiatives. “Although this change may be an additional one-time process for some producers, the ability to easily capture information from the RFID tags will help all producers in the long run,” Eddleston says.

“RFID technology is critical to advancing the traceability system and maintaining the speed of commerce that our producers require to remain competitive in the marketplace,” adds Travis Toews, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association president. “The delisting of bar code tags is an important step in enhancing our national ID and traceability system.”

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) enforces national ID and movement reporting requirements for cattle and bison under the authority of the Health of Animals Regulations. For more info on Canada’s livestock ID systems, or assistance cross-referencing data in the Canadian Livestock Tracking System, visit www.canadaid.ca. For more on traceability in Canada, visit www.inspection.gc.ca.

Thegovmonitor.com

Everyone’s attitude improved with the late-spring fed rally that occurred, and the profits that were spread out through all the segments were certainly welcomed. I don’t want to be like that uncle who decides to remind you about the cost of feed, the need to clean stalls and the cost of tack on the same day you get your brand new pony, either. But there are a few points of concern when one looks at the data from a demand standpoint.

This spring, we saw exports continue to expand, we saw extremely tight numbers, and we received some help on input costs. Looking forward, supplies will remain extremely tight, and the export market, while still highly competitive and access still limited, is expected to continue to grow. Of course, no one is predicting a robust domestic economy; in fact, most are saying we won’t get much worse or should see modest improvement.

But, the downside to the rally is that given how tight numbers are, domestic beef demand continues to be pretty lackluster at the retail level. If we can get beef demand jumpstarted, $100/cwt. might look cheap.
 

The bipartisan resolution was introduced by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Max Baucus (D-MT), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Patty Murray (D-WA), and Ben Nelson (R-NE).

In 2003, prior to the discovery of BSE in the U.S., U.S. beef exports to the countries named in the resolution were valued at more than $3 billion. It has recovered significantly but full-market access has been slow in coming, despite the fact U.S. beef has since been certified safe by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the internationally recognized standard-setting body for animal food products. In addition, a 2006 study by USDA found BSE to be virtually nonexistent in the U.S.

“U.S. beef has been proven safe, producers are ready and eager to export their products, and these countries should act now to open their markets,” Klobuchar says. Klobuchar is a member of the Senate Agriculture, Forestry, and Nutrition Committee, and chairs the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion.

Stephen Smith, an AgriLife Research meat scientist, and a team of researchers found that contrary to popular perception, ground beef from pasture-fed cattle had no beneficial effects on plasma lipid. However, high monounsaturated fat ground beef from grain-fed cattle increased HDL cholesterol, increased LDL particle diameters, and decreased insulin, suggesting that ground beef produced by intensive production practices provides “a healthful, high-quality source of protein.”

Read more
 

Paul Dykstra, beef cattle specialist with Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB), developed a calf price breakeven calculator to do just that.

Read more

U.S. ending stocks declined from the previous month for new crop corn and cotton, on higher projected ethanol use and a projected increase in exports, respectively, according to USDA’s June 10 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates.  

Total U.S. corn use for 2010-11 was projected 110 million bushels higher than the previous month, reflecting a 100 million bushel increase in projected ethanol use. This lowered projected corn ending stocks for 2010-11 by 245 million bushels from the previous month, to 1.573 billion bushels.  

The season-average farm price for corn is projected 10 cents higher on both ends of the range to $3.30 to $3.90 per bushel.  

U.S. corn use for old crop was projected 135 million bushels higher than the previous year on a 150 million bushel increase in corn for ethanol. Feed and residual use was lowered 25 million bushels with increased availability of distillers’ grains.  

Old crop corn ending stocks were projected 135 million bushels lower. At 1.603 million bushels, ending stocks would be down 70 million from 2008-09. The projected 2009-10 farm price for corn was lowered 5 cents on both ends of the range to $3.45 to $3.65 per bushel.  

Projected global new crop corn production was raised 700,000 tons. USDA also projected a 10-million-bushel increase in projected U.S. sorghum exports for old crop.  

Cotton  

USDA is projecting a 200,000 bale decline from the previous month for new crop cotton ending stocks, to 2.8 million bales, equal to 17 percent of total use and the smallest stocks level since 1995-96. The reduction is due mostly to an increase in exports for 2009-10.The forecast range for the marketing-year average price received by producers remains at 60 to 74 cents per pound.  

World cotton projections for 2010-11 include projected ending stocks of 49.6 million bales, or 41.5 percent of total use. If realized, this would be the smallest stocks-to-use ratio since 1994-95.  

Rice  

In rice, U.S. imports for 2010-11 were projected at 21 million hundredweight, down 1 million from last month. U.S. 2010-11 rice production projection was left unchanged at a record 244 million hundredweight.   Projected 2010-11 rice exports were raised 2 million hundredweight — all in long-grain rice — to 109 million, based partly on larger expected exports to Western Hemisphere markets. Rough rice exports are projected at a record 45 million hundredweight. Ending stocks for 2010-11 are projected at 45.4 million hundredweight, down 6 million or 12 percent from a month ago, but up 17 million or 60 percent from 2009-10.   The 2010-11 long-grain U.S. season-average farm price was projected at $9.75 to $10.75 per hundredweight, down 25 cents per hundredweight on each end of the range. The combined medium- and short-grain price is projected at $14.50 to $15.50 per hundredweight, unchanged from a month ago. Prices for both classes of rice are projected to be well below 2009-10 levels, mainly due to large domestic and global supplies and lower Asian prices.  

Global production is projected at a record 459.4 million tons, down 300,000 tons, while global consumption is projected at a record 452.8 million tons, down 600,000 tons. Global ending stocks for 2010-11 are projected at 96.3 million tons, down 400,000 tons, but up 6.6 million from 2009-10.  

Soybeans  

U.S. soybean ending stocks for 2009-10 were projected at 185 million bushels, down 5 million from last month while stocks for 2010-11 were reduced 5 million bushels to 360 million bushels.  

The U.S. season-average soybean price for 2010-11 is projected at $8 to $9.50 per bushel.   Brazil’s 2009-10 estimated soybean production was increased 1 million tons to a record 69 million reflecting increased harvested area and record yields.  

Wheat  

U.S. wheat ending stocks for 2010-11 are projected 6 million bushels lower, but remain up year-to-year and the highest since 1987-88. The season-average farm price for all wheat is projected at $4 to $4.80 per bushel, down from $4.10 to $5.10 per bushel last month.  

Global wheat supplies for 2010-11 were projected 4.1 million tons lower in June reflecting reductions for EU-27, the United States and Brazil. Global production for 2010-11 was lowered 3.7 million tons. Global ending stocks are projected 4.2 million tons lower at 193.9 million tons.

From DeltaFarmPress

 A steep drop in milk prices has left the U.S. dairy industry in precarious shape.   Across the nation, dairy operations are going bankrupt as under-pressure farmers point to price manipulation and poorly designed government programs as chief culprits.

Read more at FarmPress

We’re used to hearing about the “oil crisis” — the limited supply of oil and the billions of dollars sent overseas to buy oil from unstable countries.

Now, the first oil crisis has been overshadowed by what you could call a second oil crisis — the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that is spewing thousands of barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico. The disaster has taken its place in the record books as the United States’ worst oil spill ever.

Read more
 

  That’s a timely reminder as the southern High Plains swelters amid the season’s first heat wave. 

Read more at BeefMagazine

 “It is our belief that a herd retirement at this time will add to the positive momentum already building and should result in speeding up the milk price recovery already in progress,” says Jerry Kozak, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), which manages CWT. “With beef prices very strong, and replacement cow and springer prices still relatively low, CWT has determined that it will consider bids up to, but not to exceed, $3.75/cwt. However, there is no guarantee that a producer who bids at the maximum level will be selected.”   

Participating producers receive payment for 12 months worth of milk production of retired cows, as well as the beef salvage value of the cattle.   

As was the case last year, CWT has no set target for the volume of milk or the number of cows to be removed in this herd retirement. “Whether CWT will remove a significant number of dairy animals will depend on the number of bids received and the price level of those bids,” Kozak says. “CWT will not pay more for cows than what they are currently worth in the marketplace.”   

The cutoff date for producers to submit bids this time around is June 25. So, chances are cattle accepted into the program will head to market in mid to late summer.   

Best as we can tell with our abacus and from previous CWT news releases, approximately 200,000 cows were retired last year, accounting for upwards of 4 billion lbs. of annual milk production. Counting another retirement in late 2008, that’s approximately 250,000 cows and 5 billion lbs. of milk production.  

From Beef Magazine

Read more from Economic Recovery...

Cattle producers preparing to work spring-born calves should be taking steps now to protect their animals from the respiratory diseases, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhea virus.

By vaccinating calves now, the first vaccination against IBR and BVDV takes place at a time when there is comparatively less stress on a calf.

“This gives the animal an excellent opportunity to begin the development of cell-mediated immunity,” said Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension cattle reproduction specialist. “The calf then is re-vaccinated at weaning time.”

Selk cites the July 2008 issue of the Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, which details a study comparing a “calf-working” vaccination program with the traditional “pre-weaning” vaccination schedule.

OSU veterinary medicine scientists, in cooperation with scientists at the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation in Ardmore, studied the timing of modified-live virus vaccinations in beef calves.

Read more from Vaccinate calves against respiratory diseases

In the past, this service was available by request.  The CBE believed that offering this new technology can help producers make informed decisions in securing new genetics and marketing those progeny.  The new-age genomic profiles go far beyond the first DNA marker tests that were introduced in years past, which only included a handful of genetic markers.

The modern genomic profiles result from a panel of DNA markers.  The common terminology for a genetic panel is a “snips” (SNPs, single-nucleotide polymorphisms). A SNP alone will not verify a trait, but a panel of critically selected SNPs for multiple traits provides molecular breeding values that can be used in the calculation of EPDs.  The individual breed EPD calculations already use multiple sources of information.

The genomic values become an additional piece of information.  For more information concerning the use of genetic profiles, contact the respective breed association to determine which test and panel is appropriate for a specific breeding program.

The Pennsylvania Center for Beef Excellence was proud to be able to participate in this year’s Bull Testing Program and hopes that these genetic tests will open opportunities for producers and their herds.   

Read more

A second jobs bill now moving through the Senate contains an agriculture disaster package that was stripped from an earlier bill.

Introduced by Montana Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the legislation is expected to be put on a fast track. Read more

Funding Available for Management, Profitability Teams

Harrisburg – Pennsylvania’s beef industry is benefiting from the efforts of the newly-formed Center for Beef Excellence, an initiative of the Pennsylvania Beef Task Force.

Governor Edward G. Rendell appointed the Pennsylvania Beef Task Force in 2007 to re-energize the state’s cattlemen, encouraging them to push for increased profits, more beef production and a stronger agricultural economy. The group’s 70 members represent all aspects of the industry from production, education and industry.   

“We are excited about the progress the Center for Beef Excellence has made in the first year to establish a strong foundation and begin building a network within the beef industry,” said executive director J. Willard Lemaster. “As we continue to expand our services and programs, we can further help our producers improve profitability while moving the entire industry forward.”

The center has established the Integrated Resource Management Team program, or IRM teams, for Pennsylvania cow-calf operations. The program brings together experts from all areas of beef cattle production to work with the producer to target and address on-farm problem areas.

The center will offer a maximum of $3,000 for up to 12 farms to develop a team. Funding is available for 18 months of the IRM team operation and may be used to reimburse team members or cover up to 50 percent of expenses incurred in identifying solutions to farm problems.

A mentor will be provided to help coordinate each team meeting and provide input. Teams are encouraged to meet monthly or bimonthly to evaluate the operation, set goals and develop action plans for targeted areas, and assess progress.

Applications for IRM teams are now being accepted by contacting the center at 717-425-5545, or via e-mail. IRM seminars and training sessions for all interested producers will be coordinated through the center.

Other strides made by the center during the first year include:

• Establishing a Web site (www.beefexcellence.com) that offers information and resources for producers, packers, retailers and youth, in addition to a marketplace section where producers can sell beef-related items at no charge to them.
• Purchasing a trailer and portable handling facilities with a grant for small producers to borrow when participating in a calf pool to combine their market calves to potentially get higher prices and offer more marketing opportunities. Based on the grant, priority is given to producers in Bedford, Bradford, Greene, Fayette and Somerset counties. The equipment is also used as an educational tool to show producers the advantages of marketing backgrounded calves, or those weaned for 45 days, on feed prior to marketing and vaccinated twice, and demonstrate the ease of working with cattle with the proper equipment.
• Providing funding for the Beef Quality Assurance program to support its mission of providing guidelines for production management techniques that raise consumer confidence.
• Helping fund new genetic testing of bulls at the 2009-2010 Pennsylvania Livestock Evaluation Center Bull Performance Test with an educational outreach program to explain how the results affect producers within all segments of the industry.
• Partnering with industry groups like the Pennsylvania Beef Council, Pennsylvania Cattlemen’s Association, Penn State Cooperative Extension, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Pennsylvania Veterinary program among others, to sponsor events.
• Developing marketing materials for use at trade shows, meetings and events.

For more information about the Center for Beef Excellence, call 717-425-5545, or e-mail Executive Director Willard Lemaster.

As the lackluster economy puts a stranglehold on state budgets and officials search for places to make cuts, one target of the ax is agriculture programs, including Extension.

Some were potentially draconian. Michigan was threatened with a 44 percent cut in funding for Extension and research stations after narrowly escaping elimination through line item vetoes. In October, however, the governor approved a budget that included the programs.

Ag economist Dave Schweikhardt, formerly at Mississippi State and now at Michigan State, says, “The bottom line is that state and local governments are a major contractionary force in the economy right now, because their only choice is to raise taxes or cut spending.

Read more

Read more

As a member of the Southern United States Trade Association (SUSTA), West Virginia agricultural producers will have an opportunity to showcase and sell in the Canadian, Chinese and Australian markets.

The missions are part of a multi-year initiative of SUSTA, a trade-based group with the goal of helping companies enter and successfully compete in the lucrative Chinese market. In 2009, the organization led more than 85 trade events in 35 markets throughout the world.

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

It is still likely the Senate will act in early 2010 ensuring no person will escape the estate tax.  The Senate will potentially enact legislation or promulgate a retroactive statement which will change or extend current law. A retroactive tax fix would likely raise many complications, especially if lawmakers wait too long to enact it.  The constitutionality of such a fix is questionable; however many U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, have historically defended retroactive taxes. 

Currently,  estates larger than $7 million per couple or $3.5 million for individuals are subject to the estate tax.  If Congress does not act, those under that threshold will be hit with the following major tax changes:

• Estate and generation-skipping transfer (GST) taxes will be repealed for 2010;
• Gift tax will be retained with a top rate of 35 percent and an exclusion amount of $1 million;
• The stepped-up basis at death rules will be repealed and replaced with modified carryover basis. The recipient of the bequeathed property will receive a basis equal to the lesser of the adjusted basis of the property in the hands of the decedent, or the fair market value of the property on the date of the decedent's death;
• Executors will be able to increase the basis of estate property by up to $1.3 million, or $3 million in the case of property passing to a surviving spouse. Thus, an estate will be allowed to increase the basis of property transferred to a surviving spouse by as much as $4.3 million. However, the basis of an asset cannot be adjusted above its fair market value at the date of the decedent's death; and
• Executors of estates will also be required to report certain details relating to transfers at death of non-cash assets in excess of $1.3 million and appreciated property received by the decedent within three years of death for which a gift tax return was required to be filed.

Many tax provisions will be expiring at the end of next year – see the CNBC article below.   NCBA will continue to be your voice of reason on tax matters in Washington and we will continue to monitor these issues and get you updates as they occur. 

View the Congressional Budget Office brief of the estate tax.  

North Carolina has become the fourth state with confirmed cases of novel H1N1 flu in pigs.

A federal laboratory has verified the presence of the 2009 novel H1N1 flu virus in samples taken from pigs at two North Carolina farms. Minnesota, Indiana and Illinois have previously reported cases of the novel H1N1 virus in pigs.

The pigs in North Carolina have been under the care of a swine veterinarian and have recovered from the illness. “The herd veterinarian noticed signs of mild illness in the pigs and conducted tests to determine the type,” reports State Veterinarian David Marshall. “Confirmatory tests by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, IA, indicated the virus was H1N1.

Read the full story

 Read the full story

From CattleNetwork

Even after years of sounding the global warning alarm, of gathering data, of preparing predictive models and proposing solutions, it remains far too easy to poke holes in what should be, by now, a tighter case for global warming.

If a massive, hugely expensive climate-targeting bureaucracy is built, shouldn’t it be upon bedrock science?

Perhaps such unequivocal bedrock will eventually be found. But the lead up to the early-December climate forum in Denmark wasn’t smooth for those agitating for a global effort to tackle climate change.

Read the full article

Do you see a warning light flashing? Americans with high net worth and high incomes are preparing for the likelihood of higher taxes in 2011 and subsequent years. High earners are almost certainly going to take the hit if the EGTRRA and JGTRRA cuts fade away at the end of 2010.

Here’s a summary of what’s happening – and a look at what might happen.

There are some developments you will want to remember, and some tax breaks you might very well want to exploit.

No phaseouts on itemized deductions and personal exemptions in 2010. This may provide you with an opportunity for some notable tax savings. Historically, high-income taxpayers have been subject to a reduction in the value of itemized deductions and personal exemptions. That has gradually decreased in this decade. In 2010, the phaseouts are gone entirely. In 2011, they are poised to return.

As IRS standard deduction and personal exemption amounts are indexed to inflation, you’ll see very little change there for 2010. The standard deduction for heads of household will rise by $50 to $8,400 for the 2010 tax year. Other standard deductions will stay put, and the personal exemption amount will remain at $3,650 for 2010.

Lower long-term capital gains rates through 2010. Unless Congress decides to extend these Bush-era cuts, capital gains tax rates will revert to pre-2003 levels in 2011. For 2010, the long-term capital gains rate for those in the 10% and 15% tax brackets is 0%. In 2011, it is set to go to 10%. If you fall into the 25%, 28%, 33% or 35% tax brackets, the capital gains rate is 15% in 2010 and 20% in 2011.

The Tax Extenders Act of 2009. The House passed this legislation on December 9, and the Senate is likely to follow suit. The final version of this bill would likely extend the additional standard deduction for real property taxes, the deduction for state and local sales tax, and deductions for tuition/education expenses and teachers' classroom expenses into 2010.

The estate tax. 0% estate taxes in 2010? That was the plan … but the reality is that estate taxes are likely to remain at current levels in 2010 with some retroactive lawmaking. In early December, the House voted to restore the estate tax for 2010; a week later, the Senate voted against temporarily extending 2009 estate tax levels into the coming year. The Senate will almost certainly take up the issue again in January. However, to prevent a complete repeal of the estate tax next year, any new legislation is expected to contain a retroactive provision. So instead of taking effect upon passage, any new estate tax law would likely be made retroactive to January 1, 2010.  

The AMT. You know how it works – Congress comes up with another AMT patch at the stroke of midnight and middle-class taxpayers are saved once more. Well, just to make things interesting, the Tax Extenders Act of 2009 doesn’t include an AMT patch for 2010. Many tax professionals think the 2010 patch issue will be addressed early next year, with the patch for the 2010 tax year made retroactive.

How will marginal tax rates rise in 2011? Does anyone think taxes won’t increase in the near future? At present, the marginal tax rates are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%. If Congress doesn’t act by the end of 2010, the tax brackets will reset to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. By the way, President Obama and some Democrats have proposed future tax brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 36% and 39.6% for 2011 (that is, only the highest two brackets would revert to pre-EGGTRA levels).

A healthcare surtax? If the healthcare reforms pass in 2010, taxpayers in the highest brackets might pay even more to the IRS. For example, the legislation that the House passed would require couples with MAGI of $1,000,000 or more or individuals with MAGI of $500,000 or more to pay an additional 5.4% surtax.

And finally, a dilemma for Congress. Congress would like to extend the Bush-era tax cuts further to protect lower-income and middle-income taxpayers. However, some analysts say it would cost the federal government more than $1 trillion over the next decade to do so.

Have you talked to your tax advisor lately? If you have, good for you. If you haven’t, do so now. Prepare for change, and plan to take advantage of extended and potentially expiring tax breaks. 

Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln has announced the selection of Julie Anna Potts to serve as chief counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. Lincoln is chairman of the committee.

Potts, an Alabama native, most recently served as general counsel for the American Farm Bureau Federation. She is a graduate of Bryn Mawr College and George Washington University Law School.

“Julie Anna’s experience with the American Farm Bureau Federation and her service to American agriculture will be a great asset to the Senate Agriculture Committee,” Lincoln said. “I am proud to welcome her to the committee and look forward to working closely with her on issues important to Arkansas and our nation’s farmers, ranchers and rural communities.”

Prior to her service at the American Farm Bureau Federation, Potts was an attorney with Mayer Brown LLP and a law clerk at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“It is an honor to be able to serve the Senate Agriculture Committee. I am looking forward to joining the committee and continuing my work on issues critical to agriculture and rural America,” Potts said.

“Basic broadband service is no longer a luxury — it’s a necessity for strengthening our rural communities and fueling economic development.”

Ten years ago, President Bill Clinton declared a need to “bridge the digital divide” separating those with broadband high speed Internet service from those, predominantly in rural areas, with either no access or slow dial-up connections.

Today, unfortunately, “The divide remains,” says Lawrence Strickling, assistant secretary for communications and information for the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

At a hearing by a House agriculture subcommittee, he cited a Pew Internet and American Life Project study showing that only 38 percent of rural American households subscribe to broadband service at home. That compares to 57 percent for cities and 60 percent for suburbs.

But those figures are by no means definitive, Strickling notes, because “at this moment no federal agency has collected comprehensive and reliable data” on the current state of broadband in rural America.

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he said, plans call for mapping grants to every state and territory that will result in a national broadband map by February 2011. Congress also provided funds to accelerate deployment of broadband services to rural communities.

Depending on the source, U.S. broadband is a shabby, overpriced also-ran compared to other nations, or is actually pretty good in terms of service and value. Again, no definitive data.

Regardless, deployment of broadband is critical to the growth of rural communities, according to a report by USDA’s Economic Research Service, which concluded that high speed Internet access can boost the economic base, increase employment and off-farm earnings, broaden educational opportunities, and offer greater access to medical knowledge and providers.

“It is often the key factor that can level the economic playing field, provide rural businesses access to national and international markets, and allow new, small, and home-based businesses to thrive,” Jonathan Adelstein, administrator for USDA’s Rural Utilities Service, said at the House subcommittee hearing.

“We are now applying our technical skills, historical knowledge, and financial expertise gained over the past 75 years to meet the new challenge of deploying next-generation broadband capability in rural communities.” The Recovery Act includes $2.5 billion for rural broadband deployment.

Earlier this year, the Congressional Rural Caucus urged the Federal Communications Commission to address the needs of rural America as it develops a national broadband plan.

“In recent years, rural states have seen a brain drain, causing us to lose our most vital economic assets to more populated areas,” Co-Chair Adrian Smith of Nebraska said at a recent meeting of the caucus with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. “Broadband is one of the tools we have to counter this brain drain.”

Co-Chair Travis Childers of Mississippi said, “Basic broadband service is no longer a luxury — it’s a necessity for strengthening our rural communities and fueling economic development. We look forward to continuing to work with the FCC in creating a broadband strategy that works for rural America.”

Farmers’ hopes for disaster aid near-term received a setback last week when the House passed a $174 billion jobs package that did not contain the assistance for weather losses during the 2009 harvest they’ve been seeking.

Sponsors of a bill that would provide supplemental direct payments to farmers in counties that have been declared disaster areas were unable to attach an amendment to the jobs package that redirects $75 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program savings to fund infrastructure and job investments.

Congressional staffers who have been working on the disaster legislation said it will be difficult to find another legislative vehicle that could be used to distribute assistance to farmers before they begin planting the 2010 crops. Payments under the government’s new permanent disaster aid program (SURE) will not be available until 2011.

“The Senate still has its jobs bill, but time is quickly running out,” said an aide to one member of Congress. “Based on history, it will be difficult to amend any other pieces of legislation.”

Although the jobs package contained no funding for disaster aid, it does provide $100 million in funding for civil rights cases that have been filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over the last two decades.

The disaster bill sponsored by Reps. Travis Childers, D-Miss., and Marion Berry, D-Ark., would provide $2 billion to farmers in disaster-declared counties along with livestock and specialty crop producers. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Sens. Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker, both Mississippi Republicans, and Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.

Of the $75 billion in TARP funds, $43.8 billion of this funding will go toward infrastructure investments, including $27.5 billion for highway infrastructure investments, $8.4 billion for public transportation investments, $2 billion for clean water programs, $2 billion for energy innovation loans, $4.1 billion for school renovation grants, $1 billion for the National Housing Trust Fund, and $1 billion for the Public Housing Capital Fund.

A total of $26.7 billion out of the total $75 billion will go toward public service jobs, including $23 billion for an Education Jobs Fund, $1.18 billion for law enforcement jobs, $500 million for firefighter jobs, $500 million for summer youth employment, and $750 million for job training for high growth fields.

The amendment also provides $79 billion in continuing emergency funding, including $41 billion to extend unemployment insurance for six months, $12.3 billion to extend from nine to 15 months the 65 percent COBRA health insurance subsidy, $354 million for small business loan programs, $23.5 billion to extend FMAP through June 2010, and $2.3 billion to increase eligibility for the child tax credit.

The 217-212 vote on the jobs package was along party lines with no Republican House members supporting the measure and 38 Democrats voting against it.

Will the nation’s fledgling biodiesel industry be forced to shut down when most of the country is returning to work from the holidays on Jan. 4?

That’s a real possibility if Congress doesn’t act to extend the biodiesel tax incentive before its scheduled expiration date of Dec. 31, according to biodiesel industry supporters such as the National Biodiesel Board and the American Soybean Association.

The NBB and ASA have been urging their members and supporters of biofuels to contact their senators and representatives to ask them to extend the biodiesel tax credit beyond the current expiration date.

“It is imperative that Congress extend the incentive before adjourning for the year,” the American Soybean Association said in an Action Alert distributed to members Dec. 16. ASA asked members to support legislation introduced by Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Marian Cantwell, D-Wash., to renew the $1 per gallon credit.

ASA and National Biodiesel Board leaders had asked congressional supporters to include the legislation in the Department of Defense Appropriations bill. But the latter was passed by Congress without such an amendment.

Grassley accused the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders of failing to back up their rhetoric in support of “green” jobs.

“It seems like nearly everyone in the administration is touting the benefits of green jobs and a clean energy economy,” he said. “It’s astonishing, then, that this Congress will head home for the holidays while thousands of green energy workers receive pink slips and furloughs.”

The biodiesel tax credit is essential in maintaining the competitiveness of this clean-burning, domestically produced green fuel, supporters say. The tax credit exists to offset the higher cost of producing biodiesel compared to petroleum diesel. Without the tax credit, petroleum marketers will be unwilling to purchase the more expensive biodiesel, and demand will vanish.

“In 2008, the biodiesel industry supported more than 51,000 green jobs,” Grassley said in a speech on the Senate floor. “Because of the downturn in the economy and the credit crisis, the biodiesel industry has already shed 29,000 green jobs.”

ASA and NBB officials said the loss in revenue from extending the tax incentive will have little impact on the federal budget deficit or tax revenues since many biodiesel facilities will be shuttered if the credit expires.

“Since it was enacted in 2004, the biodiesel tax incentive has allowed the nation to reap the economic, energy security and environmental benefits associated with commercial scale production and use of biodiesel,” said Manning Feraci, an NBB vice president. “Allowing the credit to lapse will compound the already daunting challenges facing the industry.”

On the farmer side, failure to renew the biodiesel tax incentive could reduce prices paid for soybeans by 25 cents or more per bushel.

Cantwell and Grassley’s bill is S. 1589, the Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2009. The bill would extend the credit for five years and restructure it as a production excise tax credit. Congressmen Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., and John Shimkus, R-Ill., have also introduced H.R. 4070 in the House.

“As time is running out on the Congressional calendar, Congress is also considering legislation that would provide a one-year extension of the existing biodiesel tax incentive,” the ASA said. “Either way, a strong show of support is necessary if we are going to successfully extend the biodiesel tax incentive beyond the end of this year.”

Proponents say there’s little doubt about what will happen in the industry if the credit goes away.

“Without an extension of the tax credit, all U.S. biodiesel production will grind to a halt,” said Grassley. “No one should be surprised by the upcoming expiration of this tax credit. It was extended most recently in October of 2008. So, we’ve known for 14 months that it would need to be extended by the end of 2009.”

Democratic leaders of Congress apparently believe they can extend the tax provisions retroactively sometime early next year. “But retroactivity doesn’t help the U.S. biodiesel market from grinding to a halt on Jan. 1, because without the incentive, biodiesel will cost much more than petroleum diesel.”

Immunizing calves with either of two forms of a vaccine newly developed by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists might reduce the spread of sometimes deadly Escherichia coli O157:H7 bacteria. The microbe can flourish in the animals' digestive tracts, yet doesn't cause them to show clinical symptoms of illness.

In humans, however, E. coli can cause bouts of diarrhea and, sometimes, life-threatening hemolytic uremic syndrome.

Research microbiologists Vijay K. Sharma andThomas A. Casey developed the novel vaccines in their laboratories at the agency's National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa and are seeking a patent for it.

Preventing E. coli O157:H7 from proliferating inside cattle helps limit contamination of meat at the packinghouse, and reduces shedding of the microbe into the animals' manure. Manure-borne E. coli can be moved by rainfall into drinking water. What's more, it can end up in irrigation water, and can contaminate fruits, vegetables or other crops, increasing risk of an outbreak of foodborne illness.

One form of the vaccine is comprised of cells of a strain of E. coli O157:H7 that is lacking a gene known as hha. A second form of the vaccine contains an E. coli strain lacking both hha and a second gene, sepB. In either vaccine, the E. colistrain produces a large quantity of what are known as immunogenic proteins. These proteins trigger the immune system response that prevents E. coliO157:H7 from successfully colonizing cattle intestines.

In preliminary tests, Holstein calves were immunized at age 3 months with a placebo or either form of the vaccine. Six weeks later, the animals were given a dose of E. coli O157:H7, and, for the next 18 days, their manure was tested for evidence of the microbe. Calves that received either vaccine had reduced or non-detectable levels of E. coli in their manure within only a few days after being inoculated with the bacteria, Sharma and Casey found.

Some of the scientists' earliest work with the hha gene is documented in the journal FEMS Microbiology Letters.

ARS is the principal intramural scientific research agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The E. coli investigations help ensure food safety, a USDA top priority.

A bill that would make the 2009 estate tax level permanent — 45 percent and $3.5 million per person exemption — has been approved by the House of Representatives.

The bill passed by a 225-200 vote, with all Republicans opposed. Under current law, the estate tax is scheduled to go away in 2010, but revert to a 55 percent tax rate and a $1 million/person exemption in 2011. The legislation faces an uncertain future in the Senate.

Read more

New disaster legislation should be targeted to farmers who need it most without regard to the types of crops they produce, the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation has written in a letter to the sponsors of an ad hoc disaster bill.

Read more

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Ohio voters agreed yesterday to create a state board to protect the state's $93 billion-a-year agribusiness industry.

State Issue 2, a constitutional amendment to establish the 13-member Livestock Care Standards Board, was being approved by about 64 percent of voters, according to partial, unofficial results last night from the Ohio secretary of state.

The Issue 2 vote was a big victory for farmers and business interests -- along with Gov. Ted Strickland -- who campaigned hard for it in hopes of blocking liberal animal-care reforms advocated by the Humane Society of the United States.

But Ohioans might get to do it all again next year.

Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive officer of the Humane Society of the United States, said he expected to lose but reaffirmed what he'd said before: They'll be back.

"We just needed to see this issue resolved before we launch reform efforts in Ohio to phase out the confinement of animals on factory farms," he said. "We haven't made the final decision to do that, but it's very likely."

Strickland would oppose such a move.

"I think the people have spoken, and we could make the argument that the issue had been taken to the people in the form of a ballot initiative and they had expressed their desires," he said yesterday.

Athens County was the only county to defeat Issue 2. Franklin County voters gave it one of the most narrow margins -- 56 percent to 44 percent.

To many farmers, it came down to a choice between coping with new state regulations or reforms initiated by outside interests that could threaten the economic future of Ohio's livestock industry.

John Lumpe, executive director of the Ohio Soybean Association and president of Ohioans for Livestock Care, said the vote represented "Ohio taking care of Ohio."

Ohio Agriculture Director Robert Boggs, who will be chairman of the new board, promised it will "serve Ohio's citizens in a way that will be transparent and open." It was a setback for the Humane Society, which came to Ohio this year hoping to work out compromise legislation calling for new "confinement standards" for breeding pigs, egg-laying hens and veal calves. Instead, agribusiness leaders moved quickly to persuade the legislature to put the constitutional issue on the ballot.

“Coming into 2009, CWT’s economists estimated that we would need to remove between 5 billion and 6 billion pounds of milk, the production of approximately 250,000 cows, through herd retirements,” said Jerry Kozak, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation, which administers CWT. “We are pleased that the participation in this third herd retirement of 2009 has brought us to our goal of aligning supply with demand, and hastening the recovery of farm-level milk prices that plunged because of the global recession.”

Read more

In a Sept. 21 letter to GAO, Slaughter asked for a study to address the following areas:

• Which data exist on the types and quantities of antibiotics used in food animals and on the purposes for which they are used?
• Which further data do USDA, FDA and CDC believe are needed to assess and mitigate the risks to people from antibiotic use in animals, and what efforts are underway or are needed to collect these data?
• To what extent is USDA monitoring food animals and meat for the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains of pathogens like Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella and Listeria?
• How effectively is FDA overseeing industry compliance with currently approved animal antibiotics and uses for these antibiotics?What is FDA’s plan and time frame for reevaluating the antibiotics (and antibiotic uses) it has approved for animals?
• What efforts have USDA, FDA, and CDC taken to assess the human health risks related to antibiotic use in animals, and what have the assessments shown?

The letter can be viewed here.

-- National Meat Association “Lean Trimmings

-- Burt Rutherford

Jim Byrum, president of the Michigan Agri-Business Association, was involved in negotiations. Byrum says no one likes change and no one likes to spend money to make those changes. The fact of the matter is, he says, agriculture recognizes we must be more responsive to consumer demand and perceptions. This legislation is a manifestation of that realization.

HSUS had threatened to collect signatures for a ballot initiative in Michigan that, according to Byrum, would have caused essentially these same outcomes, but in a much shorter time-frame and with much more onerous penalties against Michigan farmers. Byrum believes this is the best resolution to a difficult situation, and producers now have certainty and can spend their resources to comply with the new guidelines.

Meanwhile, livestock interests in Ohio are promoting their own "Proposition 2"

It's actually called Issue 2 in Ohio. And in a little over a month, Ohioans will vote on whether to amend the state constitution to create an Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.

If passed, the measure would establish the Ohio Livestock Standards Board, which would set standards on animal care and "take into account issues of food safety, local availability and affordability of food and the best farm management practices for animal well-being.”

According to the Ohio Farm Bureau, the resolution for Issue 2 had "overwhelming support" in the Ohio General Assembly, and passed 83 to 16 in the House and 31 to 1 in the Senate. However, Issue 2 is not without opposition. Critics include the HSUS, the Ohio Farmers Union, the Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance and the Ohio Sierra Club.

-- Ron Hays, Radio Oklahoma Network

-- Southwest Meat Association

In a joint statement, Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said, "We regret that formal consultations have not been successful in resolving Canada's concerns over country of origin labeling (COOL) required by the 2008 Farm Bill for certain agricultural products.

"We believe that our implementation of COOL provides information to consumers in a manner consistent with our World Trade Organization commitments.

"Countries have agreed since long before the existence of the WTO that country of origin labeling is a legitimate policy. It is common for other countries to require that goods be labeled as to their origin.

"We hope to continue to work with Canada to resolve this issue amicably."

According to NCBA, Canada’s decision to move forward with their complaint against U.S. COOL regulations is unfortunate, due to the potential retaliatory action that could be taken against U.S. beef. “Since COOL was first proposed, we’ve continued to have concerns about its potential implications on our relationship with our top two trading partners—not to mention its impact on domestic feeder cattle markets at our borders to the North and South,” NCBA said in a statement.

“The U.S. imports and adds value to Mexican and Canadian livestock through our feedlots, processing and infrastructure; and we export this value-added finished product back to Mexican and Canadian consumers. Any disruptions to either of these markets will have a significant economic impact on our industry. Unfortunately, it’s becoming clear that COOL has damaged these critically important trading relationships, and is not putting any additional money into the pockets of cattlemen.

“Canada and Mexico are our top two trading partners, together accounting for 59% of total U.S. beef, beef variety meat and processed beef product export revenues last year. It is likely that Mexico will join Canada in proceeding with a formal WTO dispute settlement process,” NCBA said.

-- Canadian government, USDA and NCBA releases

The EPA Administrator is required to keep such a list under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The petition can be viewed here

The petition charges that CAFOs emit air pollutants, specifically:

• Greenhouse gases that cause or contribute to climate change;
• Hydrogen sulfide that causes or contributes to hydrogen sulfide exposure localized odors, acid rain and hazeAmmonia that causes or contributes to odors, ecosystem acidification and eutrophication and haze;
• Particulate matter and small particulates that cause or contribute to particle pollution, acid rain and haze, and
• Certain volatile organic compounds that cause or contribute to localized odors, ground-level ozone and haze.

-- National Meat Association “Lean Trimmings”

• In multi-sire breeding pastures, ensure that bulls to be pastured together have been in a common trap or pasture prior to the breeding season. Bulls WILL establish a social hierarchy. They will fight to find out who is “king of the mountain.” It is better to get this done before the breeding season begins, rather than wait until they are first placed with the cows.
• Put young bulls with young bulls, and mature bulls with mature bulls. Mixing the ages will result in the mature bull dominating the younger bull completely, and in some instances causing a serious injury. If the plan is to rotate bulls during the breeding season, then use the mature bulls first, and follow with the yearling bulls in the last third of the breeding season. In this way, the young bulls will have fewer cows to breed, and will be 1-2 months older when they start breeding.
• Breeding soundness exams will be a cost-effective way to help weed out those bulls that may be dominant in the bull pasture, but due to poor semen quality, could cause a lowered pregnancy rate or elongated calving season next fall. Visit with your local veterinarian about testing the bulls soon, so that if replacements are necessary, there is enough time and opportunity before the fall breeding season is to begin.

-- Glenn Selk, “Oklahoma State University Cow/Calf Corner”

The new training is available online and on-site. An important aspect of the curriculum is the early recognition of behavior or health problems that could be detrimental to the individual animal or the entire flock or herd. It addresses animal-welfare issues and poor animal husbandry that are created by a lack of worker/handler knowledge. The program instructors are animal science professionals who will provide onsite demonstrations and guidance in appropriate handling and treatment, whether in the barn or in the field.

For more on AHC please go to www.thehumanetouch.org. For more on American Humane visit www.americanhumane.org.

In the letter to Andres A. Alonso, Boyle pointed out that the district’s web site says three of four students in the Baltimore school district are eligible for free and reduced meals. “Did you also know that according to food banks nationwide, meat is the most requested and least available food?” Boyle asked. “The population of children you serve in particular needs the protein and essential vitamins that meat and poultry products offer and school meals may be the only significant source of meat and poultry in their diets.”

Read the letter here.

-- Burt Rutherford

The article also took USDA to task for its competing goals of promoting agriculture and protecting consumers. I would argue that those two goals are rarely antagonistic and usually are congruent, but in today's age where profits and capitalism in general are deemed problematic, that is not an argument that is going to be well received. The USDA Secretary's tepid response that cited working groups and appointments, while largely deflecting any blame backwards to previous administrations, was received in the light it was given.

The cover-their-behinds attitude so prevalent throughout the article by retailers, processors, and government entities was the most damning aspect of the article. This attitude may be an understandable part of any government bureaucracy with political overtones, and a necessity in today's litigious society, but nevertheless it portrays the image that other concerns take priority over consumer safety.

It doesn't matter if the issue is food safety or animal welfare—as an industry we must demonstrate that we have declared an all-out war to eliminate any problems regardless of how rare they are. Facts and figures showing continual incremental improvement do little in the face of a story about a young lady whose life was devastated by E. coli or contrasted to a Hallmark video showing actual abuse.

-- Troy Marshall

According to the Food Marketing Institute’s (FMI) "2009 U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends," nearly 70% of shoppers say the recession is affecting their food shopping — up from 48% in 2008. Consumers in every income bracket are checking prices before checking out at the grocery store.

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

And so it is with cattle markets. Most of the past three years (or six if you start with BSE) have been a rollercoaster of shocks and changes, some short run in nature and some likely more permanent. Arguably the biggest of these and one that is likely more permanent is the change in feed prices.

Although the massive initial shock waves of high corn prices have subsided a bit, the beef industry is still making adjustments to reestablish profitably in the industry, especially in the feedlot sector, Peel says. The industry has made significant adjustments by changing the manner and timing of cattle feeding and has been helped by three consecutive large corn crops that are giving us currently the lowest corn prices that can reasonably be expected.

Still, feedlot profits remain elusive. Although feed costs have moderated in recent months, the global recession has produced weak beef and fed cattle prices resulting in continued feedlot losses. The pain is very real and the long-term reality of reducing excess capacity (feedlots closing) is underway at this time. Nevertheless, there is some potential light at the end of the tunnel.

The near certainty of a 13-billion-bu. corn crop this fall suggests that corn prices will remain in the $3/bu. range and keep feedlots cost of gain in check. Projected feedlot budgets, relative to live-cattle futures, are almost at the point of showing a breakeven for cattle feeding. It will take months of profitability to stop the structural adjustments to feedlot capacity that are underway but it would only take a bit more help in terms of lower feeding costs or higher fed cattle prices to begin the process.

There may begin to be some opportunities to lock in profitable margins in cattle feeding and that may offer more opportunities for cow-calf and stocker producers to have retained ownership as a viable alternative. Macroeconomic recovery that translates into stronger beef demand is possible in the next few months and will certainly help the process.

Markets don’t sit still and inevitably markets will continue to adjust and move toward relative input and output prices that allow profitability and more stability (in the absence of additional shocks!). Opportunities will appear and disappear along the way and producers should look for chances to take advantage of those opportunities. History is less of a guide in dynamic times and rules of thumb based on history are downright dangerous. Nevertheless, there are opportunities.

-- Derrell Peel, OSU Cow-Calf Corner

“In early 2007, we actually ran a survey and it contained about 80 different variables which we could look at and say, ‘This measurement has an impact on predicting an increase in demand.’ So out of that list of variables, we narrowed it down to a smaller list of about 35 demand drivers and have been adjusting that list over time,” says John Lundeen, executive director of market research for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff Program.

“An example is the impact of sustainability on the consumer’s decision – that was just added to the index recently. But there are two overall functions embodied in the tool: one is to kind of shine a spotlight on what’s important to the consumer and the second one is to say are we being effective with our communications.”

This study invariably shows the heavy beef consumer is also a heavy chicken consumer – they’re protein fans, plain and simple. Over the years, chicken continues to score high in the nutrition category but beef is gaining ground. Beef also continues to maintain its lead on taste and crave-ability where it tops chicken.

The numbers help the beef Checkoff tailor programs in order to ultimately help drive demand.

“All Checkoff programs have to respond long-term with what’s gaining in importance, all the while, being able to respond short-term,” continues Lundeen. “People’s desires from food are actually pretty constant. Twenty years ago there were about five factors of importance: taste, convenience, nutrition, variety and price. Now the one that’s possibly coming onto the radar is a broader definition of food around social causes – the environment, sustainability and animal welfare."

Consumer expectations have changed and what we’re seeing is that consumer wants food that delivers on all those attributes, Lundeen says. So the weighting of the factors changes, and when something stands out as being more important, we have to react to it.”

The Index numbers show consumer have reacted to the changes in Checkoff communications and are now starting to get the message about the nutrient-richness of beef and its positive nutritional aspects. In general, consumers are starting to ascribe a general positive nutritional halo to beef. They’re aware of the lean cuts that are available and safety nudged upwards. The numbers tell a very positive story for producers – 30% of “beef loyalists” put beef on par with chicken as far as nutritional value.

-- MyBeefCheckoff.com

Read more

The Noble Foundation’s Integrity Beef Program is a comprehensive management system that assists participants in producing consistent, high-quality beef cattle by addressing herd establishment, animal health and forage management. Participants are required to follow and implement specific criteria, including maintaining appropriate stocking rates; administering a veterinarian-approved herd health program; maintaining animal health and management records; and achieving Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) certification.

Read more

These permanent disaster programs, authorized in the 2008 farm bill, replace previous ad-hoc disaster assistance programs and are funded through the Agricultural Disaster Relief Trust Fund.

Read more

Even though producers were enjoying a less-challenging weather pattern this summer, many cow-calf producers have struggled to cover rising costs on a softer calf market, said University of Kentucky Agricultural Economist Kenny Burdine.

Read more

“In general, a good lease is one in which both parties agree it is fair and both completely understand each other’s expectations,” Tucker says.

Read more

The key to the system began with free land, which migrated to cheap land, and now rests on inherited land. Land appreciation is what has always made the system work, but land values relative to agriculture output have increased by such a margin that acquiring additional land is a course for only those with tremendous equity.

Read more

Some lawmakers say the measure passed 87-20 Wednesday could avert possible animal treatment ballot initiatives such as those passed in Arizona, California and Florida.

It's unclear if the proposal now headed to the Senate is strong enough to prevent animal rights advocates from pursuing such a measure in Michigan.

The measure would apply to pregnant pigs, veal calves and egg-laying hens. The rules would have exceptions but in most cases would allow the animals enough room to at least turn around freely.

Michigan and most other states have no laws addressing farm animals welfare.

The demand added up to 25 cents in support for the per-bushel price of soybeans.

Read more

According to USDA, increased supplies and lower projected prices will lead to a 15 million bushel increase in U.S. soybean exports to a record 1.28 billion bushels.

Read more

Read more

Take, as an example, Cargill Cattle Feeders. In mid-2007, the cattle-feeding company began using DNA markers for marbling in their sorting criteria for feeder cattle.

Simple, right? Well, yes and no. Just ask Bill Kolath.

Read more

This commitment is dependent upon the Japanese trade remaining open to U.S. beef products and our plants continuing to be approved to export to Japan. However, even if the border opens to product from cattle under 30 months of age, instead of the current 20 months or younger, USPB’s commitment to pay $35 per head will remain on age verified cattle 20 months or younger through May 29.

Eligible ASV cattle must be shipped from a feedyard that is an approved supplier in a USDA certified supplier program. See Fact Sheet on USDA Age Verification Programs in the USPB Age and Source Verified Program section on USPB’s web page.

Following are key points regarding the benefits of marketing cattle through USPB to receive age and source verified premiums and information that will help you participate in our ASV program:
 

• $35 per head for finished, age and source verified cattle that are 20 months of age or younger.
• ASV premiums are in addition to all premiums currently offered on USPB’s grids, including branded beef premiums such as Certified Angus Beef®.
• Individual carcass data is provided at no additional cost.
• A freight credit of up to $0.60 per cwt. to help reduce transportation costs to deliver cattle to our plants.
• A $1 per head rebate for EID tags on cattle marketed to USPB’s Kansas plants, paid upon request.
• For information on leasing delivery rights, please call our office at 866-877-2525.
• Cattle need to be scheduled by Tuesday noon of the week preceding cattle delivery.
   

Producers interested in marketing ASV cattle to U.S. Premium Beef should call 866-877-2525 for more information on how they can participate in this program.

"I know there are very strong feelings on all sides of this issue, but I don't want us to get to the point where Congress says they will not continue to fund the system," Vilsack said. "If that were to happen, I would doubt the reliability of our market, and that's not where we want to be."

Vilsack said the USDA needs to hear from and accommodate people with concerns about how a disease tracing system would be administered. He said the US needs such a system to market its livestock as the "highest quality and best in the world."
Source: USAgNet

“When someone says, ‘This is my last day on earth,’ it’s very frightening,” said Michael Marsh, chief executive officer, Western United Dairymen, Modesto, Calif. He has intervened to help at least two dairy operators this year after they expressed despair. Western represents 1,100 dairy members producing 60 percent of California’s milk.

Read more
 

“We have to get free trade done,” says Barry Flinchbaugh, professor of agricultural economics and farm policy at Kansas State University.

Read more

That is, sadly, the case with the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). People rightly look to their individual veterinarians as experts on animal welfare. They take an oath to alleviate animal suffering and in their professional work or in their volunteer efforts, they nobly fulfill that oath on a daily basis. Yet it’s been our experience that AVMA policies are out of step with a large share of veterinarians and the organization typically takes unfriendly positions on many of the major animal welfare questions of the day.

Read More

Read more

Read more

"The contraction in the overall economy has caused less commercial and residential development in many regions. Livestock and crop commodity prices have declined from a year earlier, thus producers and investors are less optimistic than a year ago," say NASS analysts. "A decrease in the demand for recreational land has also contributed to the overall decrease in land values."

Read more

Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) announced recently it has tentatively accepted bids to retire another 86,710 dairy cows accounting for 1.8 billion lbs. of milk production. CWT’s most recent herd retirement completed last month removed 101,000 cows and 1.96 billion lbs. of milk production.

Read more

Trichomoniasis (trik-oh-moh-NIE-ah-sis), or "trich," is of particular concern in the West, where grazing associations and permits for grazing on public land allow cattle to co-mingle.

Read More

Read more

Read More

Read more