Opinion

Nalivka: Herd Rebuilding – A Weighty Financial Decision

Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:50:38 GMT

As prices across the beef supply chain have hit record highs, industry discussions have become increasingly focused on the question of heifer retention and herd building — regarding both the timing and the extent. As they always have, I have little doubt that record prices will provide plenty of motivation to expand herds — some herds. While soaring prices encourage herd building, they can also become an obstacle.

Herd building, involving heifers, whether through heifer retention or buying bred heifers, is a financial decision on the part of the cattleman and timing is part of that decision. The decision to retain heifers and expand the cow herd to take advantage of a strong market involves foregone income in the current year. The motivation is to generate added revenue once that heifer has a salable calf and that motivation is reasonable. However, that additional income from another calf is two years down the road at the earliest with added production costs to bring that heifer into the cowherd with a marketable calf.

Looking at the numbers, in today’s record-high market, the foregone income part of that decision is running around $1,800 to $2,000 per head based on prices for 550-lb. heifer calves. And then, there is the added production cost for that heifer, which is real and though highly variable across the country and between cow-calf operations, it likely averages nearly $1,000 annually. Again, the rancher’s motivation to increase income through building the herd to sell more calves at record prices is reasonable, but the analysis is not that simple. Those prices are just that — current. Markets change and the potential of a marketable calf is two years away. In markets, two years is a long time!

So, how about buying a bred heifer? That decision does not involve the foregone income from a heifer calf that was not sold with the calf crop. However, that foregone income is now invested cost, which is higher. While the time to generate income from a calf is shortened by one year versus retaining your heifer from this year’s calf crop, prices for bred heifers are generally ranging around $3,500. That is no small figure! Since this discussion centers on heifers and heifer retention, buying bred cows or pairs to build the herd is not relevant to this discussion.

The analysis and discussion of herd building goes beyond record-high markets. It is an important financial decision made by ranchers and farmers and that decision goes beyond current market conditions in a changing market environment. My market outlook discussions have included these points as part of my analysis.

Your Next Read: Five Pre-Pasture Turnout Tips

Nalivka: The Cost of Running Cows and Your Breakeven Price

Mon, 03 Mar 2025 16:30:43 GMT

Decisions up and down the beef supply chain evolve around calculating costs and breakeven prices. That calculation in the feedlot involves the cost of feeder cattle plus the cost of gain divided by the finished weight to generate the breakeven price. The cost of feeder cattle, on average, accounts for about 67% of the total cost. When herds are liquidated and followed by subsequent tight cattle numbers and high feeder prices, that percentage increases. Since mid-2023, it has averaged 74% while the feedlot breakeven for the same period has averaged $180/cwt. This compares to the tight cattle numbers from mid-2014 to 2015 when the cost of feeder cattle averaged 76% of total cost with a coinciding breakeven of $150/cwt. It is no secret that the cost of feeder cattle has the greatest impact on the feedlot breakeven.

If you retain ownership of your calves, the current market for the weight of your cattle is your opportunity cost of retaining ownership and feeding those cattle versus selling them. The decision you make to own those cattle in the feedlot or to sell them is your consideration of the risk and how your capacity to manage that risk at that point —financially and otherwise.

Coming back to the ranch, this discussion of feedlot breakeven price is also an important consideration for decision-making. While it is straight-forward to calculate feedlot breakeven, it is just as important, though perhaps not as straight-forward, to know your breakeven price at the ranch for those calves. Furthermore, it may not seem imperative to know your breakeven and manage costs in a record-high market that is giving most ranchers plenty of financial breathing room. However, this is an ideal time to build a solid analysis and understanding of your business costs. Your breakeven cost may surprise you!

I know it is easy to become tired of hearing that you need to know your ranch costs in detail. However, as with any business, it is important if you are to manage market risk, and it does not have to be a difficult project. It begins with tracking your primary costs of production, i.e., fuel, labor, feed. Divide those costs by the pounds of beef produced on your ranch and you have a great start.

Your next read: Keep BVD Out of Cattle Herd

Nalivka – Thoughts On U.S. Labor Productivity and Cowherd Productivity

Fri, 10 Jan 2025 15:28:58 GMT

I recently wrote about productivity and its impact on the beef industry. These productivity gains are not unique to the beef industry, The entire red meat and poultry industry has become more productive and in fact, we have seen this across all of agriculture. It is not my intention to harp on this topic, but the impact is significant, and this goes beyond agriculture and to the U.S. economy.

Worker productivity as defined by the total output of the economy divided by the total number of hours that Americans have worked posted a 2% gain during third quarter 2024. This was the fifth straight quarterly gain of 2% or more and far surpasses the five years before the pandemic when there was only two straight quarters with gains of 2% or higher.

So, you ask where is this discussion headed and what does productivity in the beef industry have to do with productivity in the U.S. economy? The short answer is that just as American workers are the source of economic growth in the U.S. economy, economic growth in the beef industry is impacted by the U.S. cattle herd. When American workers become more productive, this fuels economic growth, but at the same time, reduces the demand on the labor force, By the same token, a more productive cowherd fuels the growth of beef production which in turn reduces the need to increase cow numbers to generate that same growth. This was the crux of my article on beef productivity that I referenced.

Every analyst has an opinion about the timing and speed of growing the cattle herd based partly on market analysis but also based on opinions of cattlemen’s intentions which concern many distinct factors. Generally speaking, we are generally on the same page with indicators pointing to slow growth in rebuilding of the U.S. cattle herd. This is an important discussion. But, more important in this discussion, is the implication of not needing as many cows to produce the same amount of beef as 10 years ago or even 5 years ago. The implications for every aspect of the industry from business management to resource management are substantial.

This topic of herd productivity does not appear in many, if not most, of the discussions or articles about herd building going forward. It should. Productivity gains do impact the rate of herd growth, but at the same time, create capacity challenges for the industry.

Your next read: Cattle Producers Can Create Value Through Strategic Crossbreeding

I'm Going Into 2025 With Increased Concerns About HPAI H5N1

Tue, 31 Dec 2024 19:07:41 GMT

As we leave 2024 behind and start the New Year, the U.S. needs to step up its efforts to stop the spread of HPAI H5N1 — for all our sakes.

Based on the official numbers of virus cases reported in the dairy industry and beyond, in poultry and wildlife, it doesn’t appear we are moving fast enough individually or collectively to rein in this virus.

I’m trying to tread lightly on this topic, but candidly, I’m afraid.

The Impact On People

I’m very concerned about what this virus has the potential to do to human beings — our dairy farmers, farm workers, veterinarians — and, yes, the rest of us.

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says the “current risk to individual and population health remains low in the U.S.,” that statement is less reassuring to me as time marches on and the virus spreads.

As of Dec. 30, 2024, the CDC has confirmed “only” 66 cases of the virus in people. See H5 Bird Flu: Current Situation.

That number is likely very low, based on what veterinarians have told me since March 25, 2024, when the virus was first confirmed in dairy cattle.

More importantly, consider what scientists are saying.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) reported on Dec. 30 that “the virus strain found in dairy cows in the U.S. may only need one mutation for it to be able to spread among humans, according to a study published in the journal Science in early December.”

Dr. Les Sims, a veterinary consultant who has worked internationally for over 30 years on the prevention and control of major infectious diseases of food-producing animals, warns in the article: “The longer this virus circulates unchecked, the higher the likelihood it will acquire the mutations needed to cause a pandemic. We need to act urgently to prevent this scenario.”

The AVMA’s complete article is available here:
Novel bird flu strain continues to threaten animal, public health

Virologists Share Their Perspectives
Another insightful article is The state of H5N1 infections and research as 2025 approaches, posted on Dec. 24 by Chemical & Engineering News. It notes:

“As more cows get infected with H5N1 bird flu, and more people get exposed to infected animals, there’s increased opportunity for the virus to evolve into a version that’s more capable of spreading between people,” says Ed Hutchinson, a virologist at the University of Glasgow. “The process could result in the virus accumulating mutations that allow for better replication and transmission, including between people.”

“Virologists are also concerned about a situation where a person simultaneously gets infected with H5N1 and human influenza virus H3N2 or H1N1, each of which is currently circulating as flu activity gains pace . But it’s hard to predict whether genetic reassortment between those viruses would create a version of H5N1 that’s more adept at spreading in humans,” says Richard Webby, an influenza virologist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, in the Chemical & Engineering News article.

Consider what one physician told NBC News Science Reporter Evan Bush on Dec. 23:

“The traffic light is changing from green to amber,” said Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who studies infectious diseases. “So many signs are going in the wrong direction.”

See Bird flu warning signs are going in the wrong direction

Impacts In Dairy, Poultry, Wildlife
The virus continues to spread in the dairy industry, and it’s alarming the toll it’s already taken in domestic poultry and wildlife. In summary:

In Dairy: On March 25, 2024, the USDA, CDC and FDA made their official confirmation of the virus in dairy herds in two states, Texas and Kansas. A short nine months later, on Dec. 30, 2024, we officially had 913 herds affected in 16 states, according to the CDC. See Domestic Summary.

In Poultry: the USDA says HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in poultry have been detected in all 50 states —1,324 commercial flocks and 729 backyard flocks—resulting in the depopulation of more than 125 million turkeys and chickens. See the Full Report .

In Wildlife: The virus has affected more than 200 wildlife species across the U.S. See Detections of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Mammals.

Do What You Can
I don’t want to experience “another Covid” or a virus that could be even worse. I’m sure no one else does, either.

We must act individually and collectively to stem the spread of HPAI H5N1.

Please don’t “kick the can” on down the road and expect someone else to do your part. Take the steps you can to help, however small they might be.
That’s what I’m trying to do, too.

HPAI H5N1 is Content Focus of Special Issue

A Message to the Ag Industry about H5N1

California Issues State of Emergency Warning in Response to More Bird Flu Found on Dairies

New Zealand Reports First Case of HPAI

USDA Reports First H5N1 Detection in Swine

Navigating HPAI: Supporting Producers and Safeguarding Cows

Protecting the Herd from New World Screwworm

Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:43:00 GMT

by Kim Brackett, NCBA Policy Division Chair

Every cattle producer knows that pests are a challenge to our operation, but some pests are far more dangerous than others. One of the new threats to our herd comes from the New World screwworm, which is currently advancing through Central America into southern Mexico and could soon be at our border.

The New World screwworm (NWS) is a fly that has a particularly gory way of harming our cattle. Female NWS flies lay their eggs in open wounds or body orifices and when the larvae hatch, they burrow deep into the skin like a screw driving into wood. These maggots feed on cattle’s tissue, causing larger wounds as they go.

NWS flies and their burrowing larvae cause extensive damage to cattle and infestations can spread rapidly. In 1966, we eradicated screwworms in the United States through sterile insect technique. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) bred sterile male NWS flies that mated with wild female screwworms and failed to produce offspring. Eventually, these flies died out in the U.S. and now they only exist in a handful of South American countries.

Unfortunately, these flesh eating flies are now on the march north.

Since 2022, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has confirmed the presence of New World screwworms in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala. Just last month, screwworms were discovered in southern Mexico, which raised red flags for us at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).

Once in Mexico, it is easy for screwworms to travel north and appear on our southern border. These flies can hitch a ride on people, livestock, or wild animals, not to mention the thousands of vehicles and cargo containers traveling through Mexico to the United States.

We know how devastating it would be if New World screwworm returned to the United States, which is why NCBA is raising the alarm now. First, we are communicating with Mexico’s cattle industry leaders so they can begin the process of screening for these flies and push for eradication efforts in their country. We are also supporting USDA-APHIS to bolster the use of sterile flies. Recently, we have been concerned that our existing sterile flies might not be getting the job done, and NCBA is pushing for more flies and better flies that will help us beat back these pests.

Although we haven’t confirmed any New World screwworms in the United States, we need you to be on high alert. New World screwworms have orange eyes, a metallic blue or green body, and three dark stripes across their backs. If you see any suspicious flies, please alert your local veterinarian, extension agent, or contact USDA-APHIS Veterinary Services.

Please also pay close attention to your cattle and watch for any open wounds or sores. If cattle exhibit irritated behavior, head shaking, you notice the smell of decaying flesh, or spot maggots in a wound, seek treatment from a veterinarian immediately. Proper wound treatment and prevention is the best way to protect your farm or ranch from a screwworm infestation. NCBA is also sharing the latest updates through our website. I encourage you to visit www.ncba.org/NWS for all the latest information on how to protect your operation.

NCBA is always on the clock to protect the U.S. cattle industry from threats like New World screwworm. Through your vigilance and NCBA’s advocacy, we can protect the United States cattle herd.

Kim Brackett is an Idaho rancher and serves as Policy Division Chair of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).

U.S. Imports of Mexican Cattle Disrupted

Mon, 02 Dec 2024 19:28:20 GMT

The Nov. 22, 2024, announcement that New World screwworm was detected in southern Mexico resulted in the temporary suspension of live cattle imports from Mexico. This raises many questions about the implications this might have on U.S. cattle markets. Some history and context are helpful to understand the potential impacts.

An average of 1.17 million head of Mexican cattle were imported into the U.S. in the 20 years from 2004-2023, ranging from a minimum of about 703,000 head in 2008 to a maximum of 1.47 million head in 2012 (Figure 1). Mexican cattle imports represent 3.3% of the total U.S. calf crop on average. Figure 1 also includes 2024 preliminary weekly imports through the first 47 weeks of the year. Imports of Mexican cattle have averaged 84.5% steers and 15.5 percent spayed heifers over the past 20 years (Figure 1). However, in the five years from 2019-2023, the percentage of heifers increased to an average of 21.3%.

Figure 1. Cattle imports from Mexico

(Peel/USDA)

Figure 2 shows the average seasonal pattern of Mexican cattle imports for the last five years. Mexican cattle imports have maintained a relatively stable seasonal pattern for many years with peak months in the spring and in November/December with lows in summer. In recent years the seasonal pattern has equalized slightly with fractionally lower peak months and higher summer lows. However, the pattern remains as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Seasonality of Mexican Cattle Imports

(Peel/USDA)

USDA has indicated that the border is expected to be closed at least three weeks from the late November announcement. Protocols are being developed for a partial opening of the border (New Mexico and Arizona ports) which will include a pre-export inspection of all cattle; treatment for insects; and a seven-day quarantine, followed by the usual border inspection and crossing process. It seems likely that few, if any, additional Mexican cattle will be imported in 2024. The 2024 import value in Figure 1 is based on the preliminary weekly data through Nov. 23 with a total of 1.24 million head. This may well be very close to the import total for the year.

Figure 3. U.S. Imports of Mexican Cattle

(Peel/USDA)

Figure 3 shows the year-to-date monthly official import totals through September. Imports of Mexican cattle were up 21.3% year over year for the first nine months of the year. The pace suggested that total annual imports could be about 1.5 million head. Most of the increase was due to additional spayed heifer imports, up 87.2% year over year and accounting for 35% of total cattle imports.

Figure 2 shows that November and December typically account for roughly 22% of annual imports. Assuming no imports for the last week of November and all of December and given the pace of imports thus far in the year, it is likely that annual imports will be reduced by 200,000 - 250,000 head from the probable total before the screwworm announcement.

The lack of Mexican cattle imports for the remainder of the year will have some immediate impact reducing an already tight feeder supply. However, some of the feedlot impact is not immediate because a portion of the imported Mexican cattle are lightweight and typically go through stocker/backgrounding programs before feedlot placement. In the January–September period this year about 24% of the imported cattle were less than 200 kilograms (441 pounds). It’s important to remember that most of the cattle not imported for the remainder of the year will enter the U.S. eventually…just with a delay. As long as the current situation does not drag out excessively or result in some permanent changes in import regulations, the primary feeder cattle market impact will be a change in timing with a short-term tightening of supply and the delayed cattle arriving in the coming weeks/months.

Your next read: ASEAN Customers Study U.S. Pork and Beef in Trend-setting Korea

The Foundation of the Cattle Industry Is Grass

Thu, 21 Nov 2024 14:28:19 GMT

The last 90 days have been a definite reminder of how quickly conditions in the cattle industry can change and remind us that while record-high cattle prices can generate optimism for cattlemen, the outlook is still largely driven by grazing. While their financial well-being is a function of the market, it is also a function of the availability of grass. Both define the cattle cycle. Furthermore, grazing is critical for rangeland health.

For cattlemen losing a large share of their grazing capacity as the result of wildfires or drought, the rosiest outlook generated by record-high prices can quickly become one of uncertainty. Western states ranchers dependent on Federal lands grazing (BLM and Forest Service), will not just feel the impact of a season of severe wildfires in 2024, but beyond, as restoration of these rangelands could last a period of 4 to 5 years.

Obviously, that period does not include grazing. Record-high prices or otherwise, this is a significant challenge – to say the least. While there was an immediate need for grazing or hay to replace the loss, that loss of grazing capacity must be replaced over the longer term — 2025 and beyond — particularly if it represented a large share of the ranch’s total grazing. Furthermore, it has been expressed that Federal grazing on selected allotments could be sharply reduced or discontinued on selected allotments following the wildfires. I believe this to be a strong possibility.

Beyond the wildfires in the West, the industry is also faced with serious drought conditions across both the West and the Midwest. This situation ranges from a continuation of the problem in selected areas to one that is just beginning in other areas and these drought conditions are one factor leading to wildfires. There are cattlemen who have already liquidated part of their herd or their entire herd. For others, that decision may still be yet to come. The situation poses the same challenge as that of wildfires — replacing forage. The drought situation can still improve over the next several months with good winter and spring moisture conditions. That is not the situation on Federal grazing lands or private lands grazing where wildfire occurred. The cards have been laid on the table and range restoration will include spraying for weeds, seeding, and plant establishment.

I am expressing the conditions related to grazing capacity following this summer’s wildfires and the drought situation to really bring to the forefront the importance of grazing to the cattle industry and rangeland health and its impact on the outlook for the cattle numbers going forward. Record-high prices are certainly a crucial factor in the assessing the direction of the industry, but grass is still the priority for the individual cattleman and the outlook for the cattle inventory.

Beef Production and Fall Beef Demand

Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:58:46 GMT

As of Oct. 18, the daily Choice boxed beef price was $320.65/cwt., up from a recent low of $296.37/cwt on September 26 and the highest price since July 15. The weekly Choice boxed beef price is also at the highest level since July and has averaged 2.2 percent higher year over year and a record high for the year-to-date (Figure 1). Numerous wholesale cuts have moved higher recently including chuck arm roast (IMPS 114E), chuck roll (116A), chuck mock tender (116B), and chuck flap (116G). Wholesale round cuts have also moved higher including round knuckle (167A), top inside round (169A), bottom (gooseneck) round (170), outside round (171B), and eye of round (171C). Middle meat prices from the loin and rib have also increased including bottom sirloin flap (185A), sirloin tri-tip (185D), loin strip (180), and tenderloin (189A). Likewise, wholesale ribeye prices (112A) have increased recently and are showing an early seasonal demand for the holidays.

Figure 1. Boxed Beef Cutout Value

(Peel)

Thus far in 2024, steer slaughter is unchanged from one year ago. Heifer slaughter is down 1.6 percent year over year. Total fed slaughter is down 0.7 percent compared to last year, less than earlier expected. For the year-to-date, steer carcasses have averaged 25.5 pounds heavier than last year, and heifer carcasses are averaging 22.6 pounds heavier than one year ago. The result of stronger than expected fed slaughter and heavier carcass weights has been an increase in fed beef production of 1.9 percent year over year thus far in 2024. In fact, for the last 16 weeks, fed beef production has been 3.7 percent larger year over year. The increase in boxed beef prices is perhaps even more surprising in the face of increased fed beef production. Higher prices and increased quantities suggest that beef demand continues to be very robust.

In contrast to fed beef production, nonfed beef production is sharply lower this year, down 12.8 percent year over year. Total cow slaughter is down 15.3 percent, consisting of a 13.8 percent year over year decrease in dairy cow slaughter and a 16.8 percent decrease in beef cow slaughter so far this year. Bull slaughter is also down 8.1 percent compared to last year. Tighter supplies of lean trimmings have kept processing beef prices higher this year and the demand for lean has increased demand for lean carcass cuts. For example, the current wholesale price of 90 percent lean trimmings is higher than wholesale prices for top inside round, bottom (gooseneck) round, and outside round.

In the fall, summer grilling demand gives way to seasonally stronger demand for roasts, crock pot cooking and increased middle meat demand in restaurants. Wholesale ground beef prices have moderated recently as hamburger grilling demand slows but prices remain well above year ago levels. Total beef production is down a scant 0.7 percent so far this year and may end the year equal to year ago levels. Despite this, wholesale and retail beef prices are higher thus far in 2024.

Speer: We Need Some Common Sense When It Comes to Electronic Identification

Wed, 02 Oct 2024 20:10:43 GMT

When it comes to electronic identification (EID) and traceability, none of the recent rancor is particularly new. After all, the industry has been at this for well over 20 years — starting with the United States Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) back in the early 2000s. Sure, there are some fresh faces, but none of the complaints are unique — the industry has heard it all.

My favorite example of that reality dates back to the 2006 ID Info Expo hosted by the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA). I was serving as NIAA’s interim CEO at the time. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns was the keynote speaker at the event, which entailed some special security provisions because of the protests (see photo below).

The 2006 ID Info Expo, hosted by the National Institute for Animal Agriculture, required some special security provisions because of the protests.

(Nevil Speer)

How the ADT Rule Fits In

That said, with specific reference to EIDs, there remain a few items that need to be addressed surrounding the forthcoming requirement as part of USDA’s Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) rule .

Most importantly, ADT has been in effect since March 2013. Most producers are familiar with the current National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES) tags — either the orange metal brucellosis and/or “brite” (metal ID) tags. Within that longstanding framework, USDA is simply mandating a transition of current tagging requirements.

AVMA explains it this way : “The 2013 rule instituted visual ID tags for interstate movement. The new final rule switches producers to EID tags.” That is, there’s no substantive change in program requirements, USDA is simply switching to new technology.

That’s an ongoing transition in every facet of life. For instance, I don’t recall anyone squawking about the transition from mechanical scales to load cells and automated scale tickets. Isn’t the principle the same?

4 Points to Remember

The hand-wringing all feels a little like grandstanding given the realities below:

1. The tagging requirement is NOT new; the cattle are already being tagged with NUES tags.

2. EID readers are not mandated — the requirement being the EID tags must also be visually readable (840 + 12-digit number).

3. There is NO feeder cattle mandate. the Livestock Marketing Association explains it this way : “The EID rule does not expand the classes of beef cattle requiring official identification.”

4. Last, producers in the Designated Surveillance Area currently use orange 840 EID tags (which also serves as official identification) in conjunction with calfhood Brucellosis vaccination. (And lest we forget about the heyday of Brucellosis eradication when every heifer calf used to be vaccinated, tagged AND tattooed.)

Undoubtedly, the most ludicrous fear-mongering I’ve heard on the topic involves the government flying drones over your cowherd for inventory purposes. Clearly, those talkers don’t understand the technology.

In short, low-frequency EIDs don’t work that way. The maximum read range is 2 to 3 feet. It’s hard to fathom how a drone would ever get close enough, let alone trying to keep cattle in-place long enough, to get an individual reading of every individual tag. That’s just not going to happen.

It’s hard to avoid the irony of all the hyperbole. After all, the people shouting the loudest about EIDs (i.e. technology) are dependent on technology (phones, YouTube, Facebook, etc.) to voice their opposition.

In the Words of Greg Henderson

To that end, the day before he passed , Greg Henderson shared with me what was to be his upcoming column for a Drovers print edition. He addressed opposition to EIDs this way:

“Yes, there are many squeaky wheels demanding an end to this mandatory EID nonsense. But are they a vocal minority? Are the opponents of modern traceability systems shouting over those who see the value in such a system? Drovers’ readers think so. At least, a solid majority of them believe there is value in animal ID and the number of users is increasing. In our annual survey for Drovers State of the Beef Industry Report, we asked: “To what extent do you agree that an industry-wide traceability system is needed?” The “somewhat agree” and “strongly agree” group totaled 65% of respondents. The “strongly disagree” and “somewhat disagree” responses totaled 15%.”

Drovers State of the Beef Industry 2024 Report

(Farm Journal)

Greg’s column then concluded with this thought: “And I’ll double down on another not-so-bold prediction from six months ago . You want to voluntarily opt-out of traceability? Fine, the industry’s big players — your customers — can opt out of buying your cattle.”

Industry Shifts: What Cattle Producers See Coming In the Next 5 Years

Wed, 02 Oct 2024 16:03:11 GMT

Editor’s Note: This article is part of the Drovers 2024 State of the Beef Industry report, which includes an exclusive survey of cattle producers and their thoughts on numerous topics of importance to the future of their operations. To download the full report, click here .

In 2023, the State of the Industry Report asked about five aspects related to consumer pressure and expectations for change in the future: environmental impact, animal welfare, sustainable practices and desire of high-quality beef. In every instance, a strong majority of producers either agreed or strongly agreed each of those items will be increasingly important in the years to come. The numbers in 2024 line up almost exactly with 2023.

The survey report summarizes it succinctly: Producers foresee continued industry change ahead, mostly driven by consumer pressure.

Drovers State of the Beef Industry 2024 Report

(Farm Journal)

Viability is Top of Mind

Despite the challenges, producers are thinking to the future with plans to add a family member and grow their herd size. In fact, 54% of producers in this year’s survey indicate they plan to add a family member to the operation (versus 51% in 2023).

Even though it doesn’t appear the business will see rapid rebuilding , there are indications many of these operations are viable and plan on remaining that way in the future. That’s certainly a sign of brewing optimism among the respondents.

Your Next Read: Are Cattle Producers Rebuilding Their Herds Now?

Press On - Fear The Crowd

Thu, 12 Sep 2024 15:42:28 GMT

“In short, people make each other crazy. And when times are bad…they depress each other.”

Howard Marks, Oaktree Capital Mgmt

It never fails, when I include that quote in a presentation, someone comes up after the meeting and mentions it. I typically use it in reference to importance of staying out of the coffee shop – because you rarely leave feeling better, more optimistic, or most importantly, listened to. After all, it’s never really a discussion, it’s usually just “talk” or “gossip” generally dominated by the most bombastic (and often negative) person at the table.

Wherever there’s group think, there’s never much room for thoughtfulness. So, Marks reminds us to tread carefully; we all have a propensity for getting caught up in the wave of crazy making and conventional thinking. And all that gets amplified in bad times.

Seneca also spoke to that reality: “There are more things…likely to frighten us than there are to crush us; we suffer more often in imagination than in reality.” Negativity is pervasive and can easily take up residence in our heads.

Therefore, Seneca challenges us (just like Howard Marks), to tune out the opinions of others: “Do you ask what you should fear or avoid most of all? A crowd.” The admonition being both literal and metaphorical.

In the end, there are really two principles at work here. One, discernment is invaluable! That is, ability to sort through lots of loud and authoritative talking (that’s more true than ever because of social media – we’re being bombarded by all sorts of noise). And two, staying true to yourself. Just do you – even if it doesn’t match the crowd.

Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at nevil.speer@turkeytrack.biz .

The Impact of Beef x Dairy Calves

Mon, 09 Sep 2024 15:49:36 GMT

The most common question I get at market outlook presentations is “What is the market impact of all these beef on dairy calves?” There seems to be a perception that these calves represent an additional number of cattle beyond the traditionally available cattle inventory data.

Historically the dairy industry bred all cows to dairy genetics, using the 50 percent heifer calf crop to ensure sufficient heifers from which to select the best genetics for the milking herd. The male calves and culled females became part of the beef industry. The growing production of beef x dairy crossbred calves in recent years is the result of increased commercial feasibility of sexed-semen technology. With sexed-semen, dairy producers can target the production of dairy replacement heifers in a subset of genetically superior cows. This frees up the remaining dairy cows to utilize beef genetics and produce crossbred calves.

Straightbred dairy steers and heifers are heavily discounted in beef markets because the light muscled animals produce carcasses with less desirable muscle conformation. Beef x dairy crossbred calves are significantly more valuable because the resulting carcasses have improved muscling and carcass conformation. Straightbred dairy calves not used for milk replacements previously entered the beef market simply as a residual, with limited or, sometimes no, value in the beef industry. In contrast, beef x dairy cross calves are a significant source of revenue for dairy producers and are subject to management choices regarding genetics and production. Numbers are uncertain but a significant percentage of potential non-replacement dairy calf production today are beef x dairy crosses.

USDA-NASS estimated the Jan. 1, 2024 inventory of dairy cows at 9.36 million head. The dairy herd is relatively stable and has only varied by 130 thousand head, or 1.4 percent, from maximum to minimum in the last ten years. The dairy industry contributes an average of roughly 26 percent of the total U.S. calf crop each year. The contribution of the dairy industry to beef production does not change significantly year to year although the relative share of dairy in beef production increases slightly when the beef industry declines cyclically. Growth in production of beef x dairy crossbred calves does not represent any net additional production of cattle but rather a change in the genetic composition of dairy calf production.

Dairy production, including beef x dairy calves, are included in the cattle inventory and production data that are routinely available. Calf crop, cattle on feed, and slaughter data and other data include beef and dairy sectors and therefore already account for the beef x dairy calves now being produced in the dairy sector. Beef x dairy calf production is not having much impact on total beef production and market prices beyond what is already considered in market analysis. There are some impacts in specific meat markets because the beef cuts from beef x dairy carcasses may have access to markets previously closed to dairy beef. Arguably, the biggest impact of beef x dairy production is the blurring of the historical demarcation between beef and dairy sectors in the U.S.

Speer: Consumers ARE The Business

Wed, 07 Aug 2024 18:12:00 GMT

Half Time: We’re now halfway through the year, and given the market’s strength thus far, 2024 is shaping up to be especially significant for the business. So, let’s review where we’ve been and explore the broader implications surrounding the business.

Market: Undoubtedly, most of the coffee shop talk centers around the market itself. It’s been another year of new record prices with the fed market bumping up against $196 as June closed out business. That represents a gain of $100+/cwt in just four years since the Covid low (week ending July 3, 2020). And through the first half of this year, the average weekly beat versus 2023 is over $14/cwt (or $200/head for a 1,450 lb steer).

Fed Steer Price

(NS)

Yeah But…: I hear the permabears murmuring in the background: “Yeah, but what about the $170 high in 2014? The newest record only beats that price by ~$25 – and that was ten years ago. So, 2024 isn’t really that great if we consider the effects of inflation.” Fair enough – let’s dig into that perspective with a little more detail and run an apples-to-apples comparison between now and then.

Volume: Seemingly, the conventional thinking out there has many believing the market is being supported by lower beef production. After all cow numbers are down to 28.2M. That’s driving the market, right?

To the contrary, the industry is remarkably resourceful. Fed beef has surged to the upside. The second graph details January-through-June fed beef production since 2011. (None of that’s surprising; for more on the longer-term trend around cow numbers and productivity see More Better Beef .)

Fed Beef Production

(NS)

Putting It All Together: Let’s pull the threads together. The third chart accounts for BOTH inflation and production thereby providing the apples-to-apples comparison (the data is detailed at the end of the column).

There are two regression lines:

· The one on the left plots ’11-thru-’19 data (the correlation = .96!);

· The right-hand line plots ’22-thru-’24.

A couple of key points to be made here:

1. Feedyards are scoring higher prices on bigger volume (the curve has moved up-and-to-the-right ).

2. That means IF ’11-thru-’19 price / production levels were at current levels (~11B lb), the inflation-adjusted fed price would be ~$109/cwt. This year’s market is $147/cwt. That represents a difference of $550+/head (apples-to-apples real dollars)!

Inflation adjusted fed price

(NS)

What Changed?: Now ask yourself if anything has changed; is any of this due to the permabears’ government-intervention playbook? They keep telling us we need central planning to ensure producer prosperity: cash trade mandate, tariffs, COOL, packer reform, etc… But all of those represent an essence of the knowledge problem and thereby introduce the risk of unintended consequences.

Instead of some intervention derived from politicians’ concept of a “good idea” (after being goaded by the rent seekers), the better question is always, “ What if we did nothing? ”

Consumers ARE The Business: The past several years is testimony to the hands-off-is-better approach. None of those supposed fixes have been implemented. And yet the market charges on.

That’s because consumers ARE the business . And success is the direct result of maintaining a disciplined consumer focus (and allowing free enterprise to operate without governmental interference).

There are more dollars coming into the beef industry than ever. All that investment in better quality and consistency AND research and promotion really does matter – enabling producers to be the beneficiaries – now more than ever.

June - July Fed Beef Production

(NS)

Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at nevil.speer@turkeytrack.biz .

Grund: Animal Identification, EID’s and Traceability

Mon, 06 May 2024 19:46:16 GMT

Callahan Grund is the Executive Director of U.S. CattleTrace.

In recent months, there has been a lot of discussion surrounding EID’s, traceability, and identification. From cattle industry associations’ policy positions to amendments of current federal rules and federal funding discussions, there seems to be as much confusion as ever as to what the heck is going on with animal identification and traceability. I for one know that it is incredibly hard to keep up with all of the different topics that have occurred and it’s my full-time job! However, as a fellow cattle producer, I hope that this article will help boil all of the hoopla down into some real “cowboy talk” to help you understand where things currently stand.

(Farm Journal)

To start in somewhat of a chronological order, we have to go way back to 2013 when the USDA implemented a traceability rule for cattle moving between states or as you’ve likely read it, interstate movement of cattle. The cattle covered under this traceability rule are sexually intact breeding beef cattle over the age of 18 months, dairy cattle, and any cattle used for rodeo, shows, exhibitions, or recreational events. All of these cattle must have an official form of ID and be accompanied with a certificate of veterinary inspection (CVI) or “vet papers” as some loosely use in slang cattle terms.

Since the rule went into effect in 2013, the official forms of ID have included- the orange, metal Bangs tags or the “840” EID tags. Cattle moving direct to slaughter across state lines (most of the time- cull cows or bulls) may have a USDA approved backtag in place of an official ID. This rule has never included feeder cattle or sexually intact breeding cattle under 18 months-of-age.

The reason I have started here is that this rule has been in place for over 11 years. The headlines you may have recently read about are regarding an AMENDMENT to this already existing rule. On April 26, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) made an announcement with their final amendment to the rule, with the most significant being a transition of official IDs to be visually and electronically readable for those classes of cattle that are already covered under the traceability rule.

With all of that backstory, I’ll boil it down to cowboy talk. For sexually intact, breeding beef cattle over the age of 18 months, dairy cattle, and any cattle used for rodeo, shows, exhibitions or recreational events, they will need an official form of ID that is both visually and electronically readable and accompanied with a CVI to cross state lines. Today, the most prominent form of ID that fits this need are “840” EID tags. I have seen some discussion occurring amongst the industry that this is a “new” mandatory tagging requirement that the government is imposing upon us. However, the only “new” requirement happening here is a transition in the FORM of ID that is used for an already existing rule.

Now that we’ve gotten a clearer understanding of the new USDA amendment to their existing traceability rule, let’s look at the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2024 that was passed in March. Within the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2024, there is detailed funding for agriculture with $1.162 billion for USDA APHIS. As part of this funding, there was $15 million included for electronic identification and related infrastructure for cattle and bison to improve animal disease traceability. This funding is intended for producers to utilize as a part of the transition to visual and electronically readable tags in the amendment that APHIS recently announced. Plain and simple, these dollars are intended to help us producers financially as we have to transition the form of ID we use for interstate movement of cattle.

I know that there have been a lot of opinions and political beliefs over this topic in the past month. However, I wrote this article to provide facts and hopefully a clearer understanding of the situation as it relates to the new amendment to the existing animal disease traceability rule. If I were to summarize this entire article into one statement, it would be: if you have already been tagging any of the cattle covered under the rule with the orange metal clip tags, all you have to do is transition to an electronic and visual ear tag.

With all of that said, I would be remiss if I didn’t include a shameless plug for the producer-led organization, U.S. CattleTrace. Animal disease traceability has certainly been a hotly contested and debated topic over the last 20 years. This organization was formed by cattlemen to have the very conversations we are having today. Producers who want to help find real solutions to building a voluntary, speed of commerce animal disease traceability system for the U.S. cattle industry. The intent behind U.S. CattleTrace is to help build a system that works for all producers and operates in the background of the industry and can be utilized by animal health officials only in the case of a disease outbreak.

Do we have all of the answers yet? No. Do we have a perfect solution yet? No. However, it is my belief that the U.S. beef producers are the people best suited to build this system. Too many times, rather than being proactive in the beef cattle industry, we are reactive when situations arise. We need you. We need your voice to be heard in building this system. If you feel called to come to the table with solutions to this problem, please go to our website to see how you can join U.S. CattleTrace.

Let’s unite as U.S. beef cattle producers to be proactive this time and take these steps in protecting the industry that we all love.

Nalivka: Prepare for a Changing Beef Industry

Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:58:22 GMT

Let’s begin with a statement from the final report of the United Nations’ recent COP23 conference in Dubai - “a pronounced focus on food, agriculture, and water, and filling gaps to 2030 in the context of climate change. The transformation of food systems is crucial to fulfilling the Paris Agreement.” Let me add that I am not a proponent of the UN. However, I believe that quote is a prophetic statement for the direction of global food production. The key word in this UN statement is “transformation.”

While the cattle industry concerns itself with producing a quality, safe product, marketing that product, managing the resources used to produce the product, and working toward a positive return, there are numerous decisions being made that impact all of the above, regardless of the decisions made by those in the industry. The most significant of these decisions to address climate change is whether we will reduce cattle grazing on public land or reduce the use of energy production from fossil fuels. Producing beef happens to rely on both. So, when I see statements concerning either of those, it is an immediate “heads up.”

There have always been environmentalists who have advocated against grazing and the cattle industry, but the battle will likely intensify four-fold over the next several years as climate change and carbon emissions become the priority as opposed to just protecting the environment. The cattle industry has long fought the latter, but climate change will require a much more focused approach toward education and public relations as the sentiment is strongly directed toward climate. In turn, the regulatory burden will increase which in turn will increase costs of production or in many cases, take cattle production out of the picture.

The human diet requires protein and beef is an excellent source of protein. Beef production is dependent upon cattle utilizing the grazing resource and in addition, energy is a primary input to agriculture. The beef industry and every cattle producer cannot be lax about telling their story. The beef industry and its contribution to food security is not easily understood by the average American which makes it imperative to be open and to build strong public relations. While I don’t agree with most of the climate change agenda, I am not writing to rail against climate change. What I am advocating for is the importance of defending a major U.S. agricultural industry producing an important source of protein for diets around the world.

Speer: Day-Old Calves Cost How Much…?

Mon, 23 Oct 2023 14:38:56 GMT

“Holy Buckets!”: There’s seemingly always an exclamation of surprise when discussing current prices for day-old beef-X-dairy (BXD) calves with producers. And that’s generally followed with skepticism: “Are you sure?”

But maybe it makes more sense than we think. Let’s approach it from a cow/calf perspective to discern the value of day-old calf at the farm or ranch (versus the dairy).

Cow Cost: The obvious place to begin is allocation of cow costs. Outlined below are some basic assumptions:

The cost meter starts clicking once the previous calf is weaned – call that day 205. Even if the cow was NOT pregnant at weaning, maintenance cost up to weaning would still be assigned to the weaned calf. That leaves us 160 days of pregnancy from weaning to calving assigned to the newborn calf.
Assume annual $1100/cow maintenance cost – or roughly $3/day.

Total assigned cost = $480/calf

Bull Cost: This gets somewhat trickier with more room for varied assumptions. Depending on an operation’s individual budgeting, the cost may be absorbed by the annual cow cost as outlined above. However, given we’re not detailing the full year for the cow, it’s appropriate to include this as a separate item.

Keeping it straightforward, assume a bull’s net service cost is $3,000 over his lifetime (purchase less salvage value). On average (key emphasis), his useful life will be three years. (Some bulls work much longer but others fail to ever service a cow.). Last, we’ll suppose he sires 25 calves per year. That works out to ~$40/calf.
Conservatively assume it costs roughly $1250 annually to maintain a bull – that equates to $50/calf.

Total assigned cost = $90/calf

Interest: The current median interest rate on operating notes is roughly 8.5% . We’ll assign that rate for 160 days on the cow side and a full year on the bull side. That works out to roughly $18 plus $8, respectively.

Total assigned cost = $26/calf

Death Loss: Based on historical USDA survey data , assume 3% of calves will be lost due to dystocia and/or other causes. Another 4% are born alive but die prior to weaning. Assigning one-fourth of those post-calving losses equals 1%. Therefore, we’re left with a 96% survival rate ready for sale. That adds an additional $25/head to the cost.

Total assigned cost = $25/calf

Total Direct Costs: Based on averages, IF someone wanted to purchase day-old calves from your farm or ranch, you’d require total direct cost just to breakeven. We can fuss with the numbers here-and-there but it provides a ball-park figure of the cost assigned to every calf.

Total direct cost: $621/calf

Intangibles: But we need to stretch beyond just those considerations. IF the following things were to occur, you’d require even more dollars to ensure you’re adequately compensated for your management:

Cows bred to known sires with propensity for superior feedlot and carcass performance;
Ensure each calf receives colostrum AND has its navel dipped;
Individually identify every calf with an eID;
Ranch provides ready access to comprehensive data management system enabling potential access to sire and dam (and other pertinent) information to buyer;
Provide easily-accessible facilities to pick calves up with minimal hassle;
Facilitate steady, reliable source of calves year-around.

All of those items provide added value to the buyer. As a producer, you’d accordingly want to be rewarded for such. Not to mention, there needs to be some consideration for profit in all of this.

Total Assigned Cost = +$10, +$25, +$50, +More???

Bottomline: Markets are amazingly efficient. The end result is uncanny; the numbers are remarkably similar to current prices for day-old calves (i.e. sizeable quantity of high-quality, well-managed calves). And from that perspective, the two sides of the business (beef versus dairy) really aren’t all that different. I noted in a previous column that, “What used to be considered a highly discounted after-thought (straight dairy steers/heifers) is rapidly transforming into a meaningful source of production (BXD steers).” With all that in mind, perhaps the day-old BXD market really isn’t as far off-base as we might have first thought.

No, Beef Demand is Not Shrinking

Thu, 19 Oct 2023 02:18:18 GMT

Despite higher retail prices the past two years, consumer demand for beef remains at a high level. The June beef demand index, for instance, stood at 85.5 on a scale of 100. That’s down slightly from a year earlier, yet considered strong in the face of inflation. The resilience of demand can be attributed to quality improvements the beef industry has made the past two decades.

There remain, however, zealous efforts to convince you that beef demand is in decline and paint that as a failure of your Beef Checkoff. Those checkoff deniers lean on the industry’s most misinterpreted statistic – per capita beef consumption. Indeed, this summer multiple authors have used per capita consumption data to make the argument the U.S. Congress should attach the Opportunities for Fairness in Farming (OFF) Act as a rider to the next farm bill.

Proponents of the OFF Act claim they are only seeking transparency and wish to prevent rampant corruption funded by producer checkoff dollars, though they offer little evidence of the latter. The OFF Act is a wide net that would snare not just the Beef Checkoff, but every producer-funded checkoff currently in operation.

Our focus here is not on the broad impact adoption of the OFF Act would create, but the misrepresentation of per capita consumption. For instance, checkoff deniers point to how per capita beef consumption has declined from 76.4 pounds in 1980 to 58.9 pounds in 2021. Indeed, that’s a decline of 23%, but ignores the fact the U.S. population has grown from 223 million in 1980 to 338 million in 2021.

Beef production? “America produces approximately the same amount of beef today as it did in 1975 with one-third fewer cows,” says Sterling Marketing president John Nalivka.

But using declining per capita consumption data to claim demand is in decline, as some checkoff critics are doing, is an attempt at gaslighting producers. Let’s revisit the work of a leader who helped rescue your industry in the late 1990s, Virginia Tech ag economist Wayne Purcell. In 1998 he authored “ A Primer on Beef Demand ,” or “To fix it You Have to Understand It.” We’ll focus on the understand part.

“Per-capita consumption is seen as synonymous with demand,” Purcell wrote 25 years ago. “Nothing could be further from the truth. Per-capita consumption is calculated by the USDA using an accounting approach to measure beginning beef stocks, production, and ending stocks. A ‘disappearance’ measure is then generated and converted to a per-capita basis. If per-capita consumption measures anything directly, it measures per-capita supply. It certainly does not measure demand.”

Purcell, who retired in 2008 and died in 2018, said, “You can sell a quantity of anything at some price! And in the case of beef, a perishable product, we consume essentially all we have. It is price that does the adjusting.”

Due to a smaller national herd, beef production will be down this year and next, guaranteeing per capita consumption will further shrink. But don’t be misled, that’s not an indication of shrinking demand.

For more on per capita consumption vs. actual demand, see:

Speer: Beef Checkoff Changed the Game

Speer: Not Even Close

12 Percent Claim is 100 Percent B.S.

Tue, 05 Sep 2023 19:21:47 GMT

Old, white males such as me are responsible for a large share of the world’s problems. That argument is routinely made by politicians young-and-old, scientists young-and-old, and many women I have met.

There’s some truth to that broad statement, but sometimes you just have to call B.S. when you see it.

Last week I learned that I’m a 12-percenter, and if you’re a Drovers reader you’re probably a 12-percenter, too.

The 12-percenters are a demographic identified by researchers at Tulane University’s School of Public Health & Tropical Medicine, which conducted a study to identify the demographic, socioeconomic, and behavioral correlates of disproportionate beef consumption in the United States. Us 12-percenters were singled out as a problem.

“Concern for the environment when making dietary choices has grown as the contribution of the food sector to global greenhouse gas emissions becomes more widely known,” the authors wrote. “Understanding the correlates of beef eating could assist in the targeting of campaigns to reduce the consumption of high-impact foods.”

Beef, of course, is one of those “high-impact” foods. That’s an argument in itself, and one that has been a target of significant misinformation. (More on that later.)

Back to us 12-percenters. The Tulane researchers concluded that half of the beef eaten in the U.S. daily is consumed by 12% of the population, with us old men between the ages of 50-and-65 eating a “disproportionate” amount.

That’s a stunning claim, if true. But it just doesn’t pass the smell test – or, in this case, a calculator test.

The U.S. population is estimated at 334 million in 2023, which means there are roughly 40 million of us 12-percenters. Last year beef production was estimated at 28 billion pounds. So, half of that, 14 billion pounds is eaten by 40 million people? That’s 350 pounds per year for the 12%, nearly a pound per day.

That’s a quarter-pounder for breakfast, a quarter-pounder for lunch, and an eight-ounce steak for dinner. Every day! Preposterous!

When reviewing claims such as the 12%, we’re often told to follow the money. Well… Tulane’s research was supported in part by a grant from the Center for Biological Diversity, a non-profit conservation group. That’s not to suggest anything improper, but worth noting the Center for Biological Diversity has urged the EPA to “regulate factory farms.”

Let’s revisit the issue of “high-impact” foods. In the introduction to the study, the Tulane researchers said, “Meat, particularly from ruminant animals, is at the top of the list of impactful foods. Livestock alone accounts for 14% of global GHGE.”

In the context of this study that quote is an apples and oranges comparison. The authors clearly identify the U.S. as their research target, yet they cite a 10-year-old study from the U.N. that assigns 14% of global GHG emissions to livestock. A study, you might recall, that was challenged by a prominent U.S. researcher.

Much of the misinformation about beef can be traced to the 2006 United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization report “ Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” That report said livestock are responsible for 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, a figure which FAO changed to 14.5% in its 2013 study “Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock” and cited by the Tulane study authors.

But here’s why that claim is apples to oranges. The 18% claim seemed exaggerated to Dr. Frank Mitloehner and his colleagues at the University of California at Davis. Mitloehner, an animal scientist and air quality expert, uncovered some critical flaws in the U.N. report that resulted in livestock’s role being overstated. And, whatddyaknow, in 2013 they amended the report and that’s where the 14.5% GHG contribution comes from.

But that’s global livestock emissions. In the U.S. the number is… 4.2%! That’s quite different than what many anti-beef activists would have you believe.

In his 2015 report, “ Livestock’s Contributions to Climate Change: Facts and Fiction ,” Mitloehner said:

“Leading scientists throughout the U.S., as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have quantified the impacts of livestock production in the U.S., which accounts for 4.2% of all GHG emissions, very far from the 18% to 51% range that advocates often cite.”

Further, Mitloehner offered some logic years ago that is still valid today regarding livestock production.

“The developed world’s efforts should focus not on reducing meat and milk consumption, but rather on increasing efficient meat production in developing countries, where growing populations need more nutritious food,” Mitloehner said.

“Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat. Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries.”

A Girl, a Goat and the Law: The Shasta County, CA, Boondoggle

Mon, 17 Apr 2023 19:08:15 GMT

It is entirely possible the Shasta County, Calif., sheriff’s office and the Shasta District Fair have tarnished your image as a food producer more than any radical animal rights group. Both are guilty of actions that are at least ignorant and grossly at odds with the values the fair claims to promote.

This is a story about a 9-year-old girl and her pet goat, Cedar, and the fact grown-ups couldn’t figure out how to bend the rules enough so it didn’t end up written as a tragedy in the New York Times. That’s how it was framed by Nicholas Kristof in his column: “ What a Girl’s Goat Teaches Us About Our Food .”

The story, of course, reveals little about “our food,” but offers a smorgasbord of opportunity for the anti-meat community to criticize meat production, as Kristof does so eloquently. Indeed, the only winner in this public relations debacle is Advancing Laws for Animals , a nonprofit law firm specializing in complex, novel issues of animal law.

In fact, the tale of the little girl and her goat received nationwide press coverage on CNN , USA Today, The Daily Mail, The Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, The Washington Post , Inside Edition, CBS News and many others.

First, Cedar’s story. Or more accurate, how Cedar became such a notorious outlaw the Shasta County sheriff dispatched two deputies – with a search warrant! – on a day-long trip to Sonoma County to retrieve him.

(Farm Journal)

A year ago Jessica Long purchased a goat for her daughter’s 4H project. The girl began preparing to show Cedar at the county fair in June. As Kristof notes, “the girl and goat bonded. Soon Cedar was running to the gate to greet (the girl), and Long says that her daughter walked around with Cedar as if he were a pet dog.”

Cedar was shown and then sold in the 4H auction where state Sen. Brian Dahl (R) paid $902 for the $200 goat, a typical premium for bidders seeking to reward young 4H members. The girl was heartbroken, and a video taken that evening shows her embracing Cedar and sobbing. Unable to bear her daughter’s heartbreak, Long gathered up both the girl and the goat and removed them. As a fugitive from justice, Cedar was taken to a hideout in far-off Sonoma County. Before doing so, she told fair representatives she would reimburse Dahl and pay for any financial hit caused by the decision to keep him.

This would be the point where reasoned adults might bend the rules for a little girl and her pet goat. That didn’t happen. Fair executives were adamant that Cedar must be slaughtered. Long says she received a call from the fair’s livestock manager who allegedly demanded she return Cedar and threatened to have her charged with grand theft, a felony, if she didn’t.

“The fair industry is set up to teach our youth responsibility and for the future generations of ranchers and farmers to learn the process and effort it takes to raise quality meat,” Melanie Silva, the CEO of the fair, emailed Long.

The fair contacted the Shasta County sheriff, who promptly dispatched deputies to apprehend the fugitive goat. This whole hot mess is headed to court.

Long has sued the Shasta County sheriff claiming deputies wrongly seized the family’s goat and then apparently handed it over to the fair authorities. In their response, the county and the sheriff’s office acknowledge that the deputies “drove to Sonoma County to retrieve a goat” and claim that “no warrant was necessary to retrieve Cedar at the Sonoma Farm as they had consent from the property owner.”

Think about this for a moment. Shasta County sent two deputies on a 500-mile, 10-hour round trip to retrieve a $200 goat! Try explaining that to taxpayers come next election.

More important for livestock producers is how the Shasta County Fair and the Shasta County sheriff – both unencumbered by intelligence – created a bonanza for animal rights zealots. Pluck any of the stories about Cedar and visit the comments section. There you’ll find responses across the country nearly unanimous in their defense of the little girl, with many using the opportunity to attack livestock production as “cruel,” “inhumane,” “abhorrent,” etc.

Here are two examples from the NY Times that accurately capture the sentiment:

Craig writes: “There’s a gigantic & worrisome unanswered question here. What kind of officials would agree to trigger such an absolutely cruel & ghoulish act against a child? Who are these people?”

R writes: “I can safely say I am completely against 4-H as an organization having learned what their values are. Insisting on slaughter and death when someone doesn’t want to participate is completely abhorrent.”

Seizing on this opportunity, Advancing Laws for Animals is representing the mother and daughter in the pending lawsuits. Whether they prevail in court is likely secondary for the legal team who will relish the chance to argue for animal rights in open court – and the press coverage the case is sure to attract.

Critical Thinking Is Paramount (And No, Cows Are NOT Killing The Earth)

Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:56:14 GMT

An Open Letter to Superintendent Rick Nielsen, Nebo School District (Utah):

This letter concerns a recent news story regarding the Nebo School District: “Utah school gives kids ‘disgusting’ insects to eat in class for climate assignment on cows killing the Earth.” Undoubtedly, the broader coverage means you’re fully familiar with the situation. While the news story drew attention to the turn-of-events, from my perspective it invokes some broader considerations.

First, climate change facts: Classroom teacher, Kim Cutler, claims, “…we’re killing the world by raising cows and animals. So we need to, get rid of cows…”. There’s simply no basis for that statement. To the contrary, EPA details agriculture as responsible for just 11% of all GHG emissions in the United States. More specifically, the beef industry represents only 3.3% of U.S GHG emissions.

Let’s take that one step further. The U.S. accounts for about 15% of the world’s total GHG emissions . Hence, the U.S. beef industry comprises less than one-half-of-one-percent of total global emissions.

Second, some broader context: Per capita beef consumption (carcass weight basis) in the United States is ~85 lb (rounded up). The total carbon footprint - considering ALL sources of GHG (both direct and indirect) associated with that production - equates to 22 kg CO₂ equivalent per kg of beef . Accordingly, the annual per capita carbon footprint for beef consumption is ~.85 mt CO₂-eq. Moreover, advances in beef industry efficiency and productivity have enabled a reduction of more than .7 mt CO₂-eq (nearly half) during the past 50 years.

Third, closer to home: EPA also outlines that 27% of GHG emissions are attributable to transportation. To that end, Utah’s Office of Tourism reports the state benefitted from having 17.8M out-of-state visitors in 2021. I’m one of those.

Now some quick math. A roundtrip flight for me from Nashville to Salt Lake City (~2800 miles) would produce the equivalent of .815 mt of CO₂ . In other words, just my portion of visiting Utah is roughly the equivalent of eating beef for an entire year. On average, my trip is likely representative of many visitors – and that occurred nearly 18M times in Utah in 2021.

None of that is intended to be critical of tourism. Rather, it’s an important industry and essential part of economic development in the state. I’m thankful for, and respectful of, the opportunity to visit Utah. As such, it’s offered as a tangible example for some broader context and draw attention to the absurdity of Ms. Cutler’s supposition.

Fourth, it demeans ranching families: Ms. Cutler’s argument completely disregards the importance of farming / ranching to the individual families whose livelihood depends on such - and their collective economic contribution to their local communities and the state. Not to mention, it neglects the respective role of ranchers – working in conjunction the Forest Service and BLM – who provide meaningful stewardship for, and preservation of, the state’s public lands (thereby also positions them as key partners in the role of Utah’s tourism).

Fifth, Nebo’s activisim: The news story reports Ms. Cutler’s assignment instructed her 6^th-grade students to write an argumentative essay “but did not permit students to disagree”. She explained, “There’s only one right answer to this essay.” That’s inherently counter-intuitive: a single viewpoint defeats the very purpose of requiring students to do their own research and subsequently provide an expositive argument.

Given that, one of the most concerning aspects in all this surrounds the very foundation of what occurred in Ms. Cutler’s classroom. It stems from training the teachers received at the District level. Seemingly, Nebo’s classrooms are increasingly prioritizing climate change activism and subsequently promoting a misplaced anti-beef agenda.

Last, critical thinking is paramount: All of the discussion above regarding climate change and beef and transportation demonstrates the importance of developing the ability to sort facts and think critically. However, the Nebo School District has seemingly relinquished its responsibility to provide such instruction.

The broader principles are what matter most. And therein lies the crux of all this. How are we supposed to get the next generation to reason clearly through any issue, if we’re unwilling to do the same?

The public school, and its effectiveness, is an essential cornerstone of our society. No one articulates that better than Henry Hardin Cherry . Therefore, I’ll conclude with one of his great exhortations regarding the paramount importance of critical thinking instruction from his book, Education and the Basis of Democracy (c. 1926):

The hope of our country is in a people who read, think, and serve; who preserve the right to take the initiative for themselves; and who challenge the right of any man or organization to do their thinking and voting for them.

Respectfully,

Nevil Speer, PhD, MBA

Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at nevil.speer@turkeytrack.biz .

Hanes: The Beef Checkoff and Lab-Grown Protein

Fri, 10 Mar 2023 23:39:17 GMT

As the fortunes of “plant-based meat” companies appear to be in decline recently, another competitor to beef raised on farms and ranches is starting to garner more headlines. “Lab-grown” or “cell-cultured meat” seems to be popping up here and there. Seeing these articles, some producers have expressed concern to me that the Beef Checkoff may begin to promote this “lab-grown” protein.

Based on the law, my answer to them is always the same – no way!

Regardless of how these lab-grown products will be categorized, the Beef Checkoff will not be promoting them. Why? It all goes back to the federal law that created and controls the Beef Checkoff. In this law, called the Beef Promotion and Research Act (the Act), there are very clear definitions relative to the Checkoff program and what it can and can’t do.

The Act specifically defines three important terms: “beef”, “beef products”, and “cattle”:

· Definition #1: “beef” as “flesh from cattle”

· Definition #2: “Beef products” are “edible products produced in whole or in part from beef”

· Definition #3: “cattle” are defined as “live domesticated bovine animals”

The Act goes on to note that the Beef Checkoff can only be used for promotion, advertising, research and consumer and industry information programs, focused solely on “beef and beef products,” and to support the beef industry.

These definitions for both beef and beef products as coming directly from the flesh of cattle (and cattle are live animals) are key, as lab-grown protein does not meet these established descriptions. In addition, no Checkoff dollars will be collected from any of these cell-based products. Checkoff assessments are based on live cattle, or imported beef and beef products, originating from live cattle. There are no provisions in the federal Checkoff law to collect dollars from lab-grown meat to be used in our program.

Keep in mind there is one more check and balance to ensure no Beef Checkoff dollars are spent promoting a product that does not generate assessments on behalf of the Checkoff program. According to The Act, any programs funded by national Beef Checkoff dollars must be approved by the Beef Promotion Operating Committee (BPOC), comprised of “cattle producers and importers”. Non- assessment payers are not eligible to become CBB Board or BPOC members and would not make these important funding decisions.

We stand by those who pay into our longstanding program and will continue to take our legal and fiduciary responsibilities in upholding the law with the same continued commitment we use every day - now and in the future.

How to Boost Lab-Grown Meat? Issue an Executive Order

Wed, 14 Sep 2022 22:37:03 GMT

Is the Biden Administration using a decoy?

While grants and funding continue to be announced for small packing plants and legislation to support small producers is a priority to some congressmen, Biden recently announced his “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.”

What does this mean?

The overarching idea to “advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing towards innovative solutions in health, climate change, energy, food security, agriculture, supply chain resilience, and national and economic security,” sounds novel in the grand scheme of things; however, livestock producers must be wary.

The push towards lab-grown meat might have just gotten stronger.

Though the White House Brief does not call out specific technologies, it’s important to read the fine print.

The brief says the U.S. needs to develop genetic engineering technologies, writing circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way we write software and program computers. In addition, the advancement of science allows production to scale up while reducing obstacles of commercialization, helping innovative technologies and products reach markets faster.

While this information could be interpreted differently, it’s worth noting how the statement can directly point to lab-grown meat.

Let’s use lab-grown meat as the example and rephrase that paragraph.

The U.S. needs to focus on genetic engineered, lab-grown meat technologies, scale-up production and help the “producers” commercialize and get product in consumers’ hands faster.

See the resemblance?

Biden claims Federal investment in key research and development of biotechnology and biomanufacturing will help further society goals.

The action plan for this focus includes a report submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies, “assessing how to use biotechnology and biomanufacturing for food and agriculture innovation, including by improving sustainability and land conservation; increasing food quality and nutrition; increasing and protecting agricultural yields; protecting against plant and animal pests and diseases; and cultivating alternative food sources.

Now, I find other parts of that statement valuable, however the addition of “cultivating alternative food sources” makes my eye twitch.

As an Executive Order, the ball is rolling and no one can stop it. It will be interesting to see what federal funding is announced in the coming months.

As a livestock producer, I feel it’s increasingly important to share what you do and how you do it.

As more information becomes available, be sure to stay connected to the industry groups you trust and reach out to your state’s legislators on The Hill.

As I mentioned, it’s always a good idea to read the fine print. Rather than getting blindsided, be ready for the wave. Be prepared to defend the industry we love.

Who Wants to Watch the Packers Squirm?

Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:18:15 GMT

Next week will be a good one for folks with good internet access and a few free hours who want to see some rhetorical fireworks about cattle price discovery.

Me! Me!

The Senate will enjoy a hearing on the Cattle Price Discovery Ac t.*

And the House ag committee will have “a panel of ranchers to hear what consolidation in the beef industry has done to their bottom lines and viability” and then get a chance to berate the CEOs of the four big packing companies about their culpability in the morass described by the “ranchers.”

Neither committee has yet told us who, besides the processor honchos, will testify. But it’s not too early to think of a few questions.

Chuck Grassley when asked what he would ask the packer CEOs, said, in that punctuation-free way of talking he has, “I would ask them to comment on what they think about our legislation.**I know what they think about it. What they think about it is everything’s alright. Nothing needs to be changed. The cozy relationship they have with the big feedlots of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado filling up about 85% of the chain kill every day is a cozy relationship for them and they don’t want to mess around with the family farmers of Iowa and how come they don’t think our bill is a legitimate answer to the problems that Iowans don’t get a fair price and they sometimes have to wait 30 days to deliver their cattle.”

Which is more statement than question, but that is the way of congressional hearings, isn’t it?

My biggest question for those guys involves the fire behind the smoke raised by that JBS settlement for price fixing. As I said earlier, it makes me very suspicious.*** I want those CEOs, while swearing (under oath this time), to tell us what they know about why the plaintiff lawyer in that case called it an ice breaker that could lead to more information later.

Describe how the price spread exploded so quickly after the pandemic started? Isn’t it unusual for the spread to react so quickly? How did you, Mr. CEO, first learn that cattle feeders were puking like prom dates? How did you first hear that there was a buying frenzy at the beef counter?

Did anybody in your office suggest you and your competitors were creating a public relations nightmare? While discussing the buy-sale equation, did anybody in your company suggest you could take a smaller profit, either by paying more to charging less, given the public panic at the time? Oh, and would you mind telling us how your annual bonus went the last couple of years?

Then, after I made sure the reporters heard that, I’d dig into what we should do as a government.

Tell us about how your production costs have been affected by the pandemic. Wages? Transportation? How much of these wider spreads are due to such costs? How permanent do you expect those added costs to become?

How do you determine which feedlots are offered Alternative Marketing Agreements (AMA)? How do those agreements differ from your arrangements with contract fowl and swine producers?

Would it be wise for Congress to forbid further concentration or even break up the big four? What sort of added efficiency does such concentration bring?

Do you oppose Sen. Grassley’s Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act? How would it impact your business? How would it impact cattle feeders? How would it impact beef prices at retail?

Do you offer any feedlots or feeders contracts based on cutouts? How feasible is that idea?

Oh, yeah. I almost forgot. What do you know about the plaintiff allegations in the JBS case? Why do you think the plaintiff’s lawyers called the settlement an “ice breaker?” Do you know of any evidence that anybody in your company conspired with other companies to coordinate pricing?

For the “panel of ranchers,” which I presume will include cattle feeders large and small, I’d have a different set of questions.

I’m guessing—just guessing—that most of that group will have troubles to report and packers to blame. So I’d have to start with, “There is overwhelming agreement among academicians who have studied the matter, that there is no need for mandating cash trades. And that imposing them would have no or minimal or even negative effect on cattle prices or beef prices. What evidence do you have that such mandates will influence prices? No ‘well, once upon a time’ cause/effect inferences. I want some stochastic stuff.”

Do you think cash trade is the only way to get fair price discovery for cattle? Can you name other industries that still rely on “just in time” cash bids for raw product? Can you name any in which the government requires such arrangements?

You’ve mentioned, several times,**** that many cattle producers have gone out of business in recent years. As have many farmers and local store owners and filling station owners and house builders and plumbers. How strong is the correlation between cattle prices and that exodus? Is it stronger than the correlation with drought and rangeland conversion?

Do you think processors should have the right to reward suppliers for quality and reliability of supply? Do you think a packer should be required to pay small producers the same price as large producers or should they be allowed to offer volume discounts?

I see. So if that is unfair, do you think it is fair that auction buyers and order buyers about always pay more per-head for large lots of uniform cattle than they pay for small lots?

And, Oh, yeah! Have you heard anything about the evidence in that JBS price fixing deal? Got any ideas why it’s a state secret? We’ll accept unconfirmed rumors, by the way. We might ask the packers about them later.

Given time, I believe I’d come up with more questions. But that’s where I’d start. Having watched too many congressional hearings, I’m guessing we’ll hear more platitudes about family farmers and greed from the dais than genuine questions or helpful answers. But that’s just the cynic I’ve learned to be through my years and years of watching congressional hearings.

*The one with the mandated cash trades. It’s quite controversial with the beef industry, you know.

**The Cattle Price Discovery Act, that is. It’s quite controversial.

***Another look at me considering that JBS settlement.

(Farm Journal)

****Just guessing there will be some of that expressed.

**Most of the members the ag committees are not from cattle country. We should offer them questions I haven’t thought of. Send me your thoughts to Scornett9163@yahoo.com

Related Stories:

Speer: I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

R-CALF Says New Studies ‘Validate’ Calls For Market Reform

Cornett: The Mandaters Move On

Senators Revise Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act

Potts: Supply, Demand Balance Without Government Intervention

Cornett: A ‘Hard Cull’ On The Facts

Packers and Allies Urge Congress to Do Nothing in Face of Broken Markets

Speer: Policy Makers Should Just Leave Well Enough Alone

Barnard: Minimum Viable Management Isn't Enough

Tue, 22 Mar 2022 18:23:31 GMT

Janette Barnard is the author of Prime Future , a newsletter for innovators in livestock, meat, and dairy.

If we’re gonna do this topic then we have to follow the story all the way to the end. Are you in?

Last week an exceptionally forward-thinking rancher said in a sustainability discussion that the lowest hanging fruit to level up the US cattle herd is for every calf to get an eartag. Not an EID, an old school humble visual tag.

(Farm Journal)

That simple step, and marrying the calf’s number with the cow’s number, allows producers to get a handle on each cow’s productivity and performance which allows them to manage their herd more precisely.

That simple step is the first baby step in shifting from managing at a herd level to an individual cow level. It is cattle 101, something the good & great (even mediocre) producers have been doing for decades.

Yet, you’re telling me there’s a meaningful chunk of the US cattle industry that is not even tagging their calves?

The idea that tagging calves represents a meaningful way for a meaningful chunk of producers to level up is....alarming. And it should be alarming for the mediocre/good/great producers. If tagging calves is the bar, the bar is…low.

In a time where hyper-innovative producers are deploying advanced genetics strategies, intensive rotational grazing, or non-traditional marketing agreements, over on the other end of the spectrum putting a mere visual tag in every calf’s ear can be considered a proxy for minimum viable management.

Suboptimal cattle production isn’t just an innocuous segment that has no effect on the rest. Poorly managed cattle are a drag on the whole system. And the impacts of the drag are worsening as the industry looks to address the big challenges.

This begs a few questions.

What is good management? It starts with a business approach, not a lifestyle mentality, which means things like:

Sound financial management.
Strong resource management - capital, land/soil, water, grass, livestock.
Clear KPI’s to manage and optimize.
Pursuit of excellence - however you measure it for yourself and your business.

“If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, ‘Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well. '” - MLK

There are many excellence-oriented producers.

There are also many existence-oriented producers. (Synonyms in this context: mediocre, ordinary, status quo maintainers, hobbyists.)

And the gap between the two is widening. Imagine that at the extreme edge of excellence-oriented producers are those pushing boundaries in all areas or maybe even hounding feedyards and packers for individual animal data on how cattle perform in the feedyard and on the rail so the producer can use that data to iterate on genetics and produce a more premium end product. And on the opposite end of the extreme edge of existence-oriented producers are those still operating at a brand level (herd level), largely raising cattle the same way cattle were raised back in the day: low cost, low touch, no tech.

The easy thing to do would be to assume that large operations are better managed than small operations. In the United States, ~10% of cattle producers own 100+ cows, yet this segment owns ~56% of total beef cows. The average is ~43 cows, which means the average of the ~44% of cows is actually much lower than 43.

But herd size isn’t necessarily a good predictor. We have talked previously about an alternative mental model to think about quality of an enterprise than simply scale:

“Big business can be good, small business can be bad. Vice versa. Size is not the indicator of success and it’s definitely not the goal.

My hypothesis is that scale is a lagging indicator; velocity of business model innovation is the leading indicator of success.

I think the successful producers (or packers or xyz business) who will thrive come-what-may are the ones who don’t think of their business based solely in terms of the output (corn, soy, weaned calves, whatever), but rather view their business as a business model that is is in continual refinement. They constantly ask what’s the process that most effectively generates the output. They think in systems that can optimized.

It seems that the really successful producers are the ones that have a vision of where they are going and how they will get there. There’s no doing it this way because that’s how we’ve done it, there’s no growth for the sake of the growth. There is only relentless learning and improvement.

The great producers realize that they aren’t selling just a commodity output, they are selling their business model.”

Some portion of those <50 head operations are incredibly well managed operations that consistently send high quality cattle into the value chain.

And, some of those small herds exist for the fun of it, or so that someone’s ego is flattered by the status symbol of owning cattle, or so that a landowner qualifies for an ag exemption, reducing their property taxes by assessing the productive value of the land rather than the market value of land.

But again, excellence oriented producers come in all herd sizes. The distinction is in their objective and their management framework.

Take a producer with a lifelong goal to improve their business and steward their resources and pass on a viable cattle business to the next generation like the producer on Twitter who said he was going to start writing an annual report about his family’s cattle business for the benefit of both current and future shareholders, presumably his children. Then take the producer who really just wants an excuse to wear a cowboy hat, or a way to reduce their property tax burden, or does this because it’s all they know and they raise cattle the way their grandparents did.

The two are not the same.

As one cattle producer puts it, “it isn’t hard to be above average in this business.”

In the past, it’s been kinda easy for the excellent producers to ignore the existence producers, the below average producers. But as the industry leans in to address big problems (which happens to create opportunity for those at the front edge), the existence-oriented producers are creating a drag that could become an existential threat to the entire industry.

Which raises the next set of questions:

How do we level up the industry by bringing up the bottom x%?
How do you get producers to shift from existence to excellence?
How do you help those producers to level up or get out?
Maybe you don’t, maybe it is what it is.

Or, maybe you lobby USDA to pay them not to produce, or to produce something different. (Yes of course it’s a terrible idea but don’t act shocked - we’ve had crazier agricultural policies in this country.) Or, maybe you lobby to refine the ag exemption in the tax code (though sometimes its better not to poke the bear).

Changing behavior in a value chain often comes down to regulations ? or market incentives, aka premiums & discounts.

As the aligned supply chain trend continues to grow and the variance increases from one aligned supply chain to the next as far as what farm/ranch level practices are incentivized, that could present an opportunity to incentivize these producers to level up...but only if they have a profit motive. Even then, there’s a high cost of coordination with small producers. Perhaps there’s a need for an aggregator platform to connect small producers with aligned supply chains.

Alternatively, as more innovative producers shift cattle into aligned supply chains, then more of the commodity value chain will be composed of cattle from existence-oriented operations. That doesn’t seem to be a good thing either, does it?

Look clearly I don’t know the answer, I’m just spitballing. And clearly it’s a complex problem.

What I do know is that as the industry looks to address the big problems like methane footprint, it’s going to take excellence across the entire value chain to be successful.

Anyone not striving for excellence is a drag on the beef industry.

Minimum viable management isn’t enough.

This extreme level of variance in production is largely only a cattle industry dynamic. Two questions:

If different than above, how would you define minimum viable management in beef?
What’s the proxy for minimum viable management in dairy? Swine?

Janette Barnard writes the Prime Future blog, with the goal of elevating the conversation about trends and opportunities for meaningful innovation in the animal protein value chain. She can be reached at https://primefuture.substack.com

Colorado Animal Activist Kessler Charged With Animal Cruelty

Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:42:57 GMT

Hypocrisy is not a crime. Neither is stupidity.

Ellen Kessler has been charged with 13 counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty in Jefferson County, Colorado. That’s the same Ellen Kessler who – while she served on the Colorado State Board of Veterinary Medicine – called ranchers “lazy” and “nasty” in a Facebook post.

The Jefferson County sheriff’s office was tipped off March 7 that Kessler had multiple birds living in poor conditions in her basement. That’s where officers allege they found birds being kept in cages without sunlight and with floors covered in seed, dirt and feces. The blatant hypocrisy is stunning.

In total, officers found 13 birds along with “an overwhelming smell of urine” and “mice were found, both alive and dead, as well as flies throughout the house.” It was determined the birds should not go back to the home, officers said, “because the birds, including doves and cockatiels, suffered from a variety of health issues.”

(Farm Journal)

Colorado Governor Jared Polis surely regrets nominating Kessler to the state veterinary board in 2020. The nomination immediately drew the ire of ranchers and others involved in Colorado agriculture since Kessler was a self-proclaimed animal rights activist, and soon after her appointment posted on her personal social media account that, “4-H clubs teach children that animal lives don’t matter.”

Further alienating ranchers was the fact Kessler was a friend of Polis’ husband, Marlon Reis, also a self-proclaimed animal rights activist. And it was Kessler’s response to a Reis post on Facebook that led to Kessler’s resignation from the state veterinary board.

Reis was commenting on a story in the Missoulian on a new collaboration program with ranchers who deal with grizzly bears.

Referring to recent attacks by wolves on cattle and dogs in northern Colorado, Kessler accused ranchers of using their cows to “bait” wolves in order to receive compensation for the loss of their animals.

“These techniques could easily translate into activism in Colorado for soon-to-be-introduced wolves and other predators already living among us,” Kessler wrote. “Would our lazy and nasty ranchers/cattlemen even raise a finger to make something like this work or is (sic) using a cow to bait the wolves their solution? A living cow doesn’t make money for them. Only a dead cow does. If the slaughterhouse doesn’t pay them for the carcass, they’ll blame the predators so the state will pay them for livestock lost from predators. What a racket. What a scam.”

Admitting she was “unprofessional in my judgement,” Kessler’s resignation from the veterinary board was effective Feb. 11, 2022. Less than a month later she was charged with animal cruelty, and given the alleged conditions under which she kept her birds, her judgement hasn’t improved much.

Under Colorado law, animal cruelty, a class 1 misdemeanor, carries a maximum fine of $5,000 per charge, with a mandatory minimum fine of $500, and could include jail time of up to 18 months.

Related stories:

A Western Governor Is At Odds With Agriculture

Colorado’s Kessler Out At State Vet Board After Calling Ranchers ‘Lazy’

U.S. Senate Works Overtime to Protect Sunshine

Fri, 18 Mar 2022 18:14:33 GMT

Even by Washington, D.C., standards this was among the busiest of weeks.

Inflation was a hot topic, with some Washington politicians considering a temporary suspension to the federal gasoline tax. The Federal Reserve, in an attempt to walk a tight-rope between inflation and recession – announced the first interest rate hike in more than three years, with more to come.

Oh, there’s also more than a little concern that Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine could become a broader conflict and ignite WWIII. Indeed, even as Vladimir Putin’s military has shown the world its stunning incompetence, America and its NATO allies remain wary. The four-week-old conflict brought about a rare address from a foreign leader to a joint session of Congress.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke virtually to lawmakers on Wednesday, followed by a response from President Joe Biden announcing an $800 million aide package to Ukraine. Urgent stuff.

As busy as the week started, the Senate – known for its filibusters and octogenarian foot-draggers – hurriedly passed a bill to make daylight savings time permanent. They called it the “Sunshine Protection Act,” which I guess is a misnomer if ever there was one. If you didn’t know sunshine was in peril, well, we should be thankful the Senate has found a way to fix the problem.

But the surprising part is that the measure passed UNANIMOUSLY. On a voice vote!

As we know all too well, these guys don’t agree on much. And daylight savings time would not be one of those issues one would expect consensus. Maybe it was the fact the Senators were groggy after just losing an hour of sleep over the weekend, or maybe they figured the House of Representatives would have a more prolonged (reasoned?) debate. (The House, which has held a committee hearing on the matter, must still pass the bill before it can go to the President to sign.)

An AP-NORC poll of Americans in 2019 found 72% want to stop changing their clocks twice a year.

Only 28% want to continue changing their clocks. Among the rest of Americans, 40% prefer year-round standard time and 31% prefer year-round daylight saving time.

Among Americans age 45 and older 38% support staying in daylight saving time permanently, compared to just 22% of those under 45.

(Farm Journal)

According to a poll by AgWeb/Drovers this week, roughly 60% of respondents want permanent daylight savings time. Which is interesting because I thought farmers and ranchers would much prefer standard time, and I remember the logic of one cowboy who told me, “you can’t cut the end off of a blanket and sew it onto the other end and make the blanket longer.”

America, however, has struggled with its clocks since 1918 when the first laws were passed mandating daylight saving – to save fuel, give shoppers extra light, etc. But by the end of World War II the system had become fractured. That led to Congress taking up the issue again in the early 1960s.

Naturally, “The Committee for Time Uniformity” was formed. Congressional hearings were held. Legislation proposed – bi-partisan we presume.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed The Uniform Time Act of 1966 – designed “to promote the observance of a uniform system of time throughout the United States.” Except, well, some states refused to participate. Namely Arizona and Hawaii.

The permanent change to daylight savings time, however, has plenty of support. Since 2015, about 30 states have introduced legislation to end the twice-yearly changing of clocks, with some states proposing to do it only if neighboring states do the same. The bill would also allow Arizona and Hawaii to remain on standard time.

Nebraska lawmakers voted 39-4 to make it permanent if Congress approves and three neighboring states do, too. Wyoming passed a similar bill earlier this year, bringing to 19 the number of states now having such laws.

So now it’s up to the U.S. House of Representatives to ensure that sunshine is protected.

Colorado Gov. Polis Transparently Undercuts Agriculture

Wed, 09 Feb 2022 19:22:13 GMT

Elections have consequences. Nowhere is that more obvious than Colorado where Gov. Jared Polis has been transparent in his efforts to further the cause of animal rights activists.

A governor can effect change through his appointments to various governmental agencies, and by influence on other appointments that are not under his/her direct supervision. In 2020, Polis appointed Ellen Kessler to the State Board of Veterinary Medicine, a move that was widely criticized by ranchers since Kessler is a self-proclaimed vegan/animal rights activist.

Rancher concerns about Kessler proved well-founded. Last month she had to step down after a controversial Facebook post where she called ranchers “lazy” and “nasty” and alleged ranchers would use “a cow to bait” wolves so they could collect compensation from the state. “What a racket. What a scam,” she declared.

Gov. Polis accepted her resignation and issued a statement calling Kessler’s words “hurtful.” He promised to appoint a new board member “that better shares his strong respect for Colorado’s hard-working ranchers and helps builds confidence in the practice of veterinary medicine across our state.”

Stubbing his toe on the Kessler appointment might lead you to think the governor would be inclined to help turn the rhetoric down a notch by making appointments that are less controversial. Such thinking appears to be wrong.

This week Colorado’s Bureau of Animal Protection (BAP) announced its new director, selected, according to The Fence Post , from a pool of candidates that included two animal rights attorneys and a wolf introduction and “humane food choice proponent.”

The BAP’s mission is to “administer and enforce the provisions of the Animal Protection Act to prevent the neglect, mistreatment, or abuse of animals in Colorado.” Which, well, helps underscore why ranchers might be leery when the top candidates are animal rights attorneys and a “humane food choice proponent,” a description that seems code for vegan.

Hiring the director of BAP falls under the scope of Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture Kate Greenberg. But open records requests by The Fence Post indicate Gov. Polis had a strong influence on the final selection.

Reporting for The Fence Post, Rachel Gabel wrote the ag commissioner’s selection panel put forward four applicants for an interview. “Those included a Colorado county animal control supervisor with BAP experience, a specialist in animal cruelty investigations and prosecutions with a metro District Attorney’s office, a state director for the Humane Society of the United States, and a senior executive of Mercy for Animals.”

That’s when Polis stepped in and put forward three picks of his own, none of whom were on the ag commissioner’s short list. One of those is employed by Los Angeles-based Animal Equity, and as part of a panel on investigating livestock crimes at the Animal Law Conference, he presented “Pasture to Prosecution: Using the Power of Animal Cruelty Laws to Protect Farmed Animals.” Wait, there’s more.

The second on Polis’ list is an attorney who claims he previously filed a class action lawsuit against dairy producers.

The final person on Polis’ list was Dr. Rebecca (Becky) Niemiec (pronounced “Knee-Mick”) an assistant professor in the Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Department at Colorado State University and the director of the Conservation Action Lab, who was announced by Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture Kate Greenberg as the new director of BAP.

In an introductory press release, Niemiec said, “I look forward to exploring how the BAP Program can use education and outreach as our primary tool to take a proactive approach to prevent animal abuse, rather than a reactive approach once that abuse has occurred.”

But thanks to reporting by Gabel, we also learn Niemiec conducted a study that advocated for the introduction of wolves to Colorado, and is currently leading a half million-dollar National Science Foundation grant in partnership with the City of Boulder and Mercy for Animals focused on promoting plant-based food choices. Mercy for Animals seeks to “construct a compassionate food system by reducing suffering and ending the exploitation of animals for food.”

As one might expect, Colorado ranchers are skeptical on Niemiec’s selection. Terry Fankhauser, executive vice president of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, told Gabel at The Fence Post, of the three finalists suggested by Polis, Neimiec is probably the least objectionable. He says he is more concerned about this hire than even Polis’s appointment of Ellen Kessler to the State Board of Veterinary Medicine.

“The message being sent by the governor is agriculture being a mortal enemy of the Department of Agriculture and the state,” Fankhauser said. “That message is being heard loud and clear. We are under attack.”

The sad reality for ranchers in Colorado is that Polis’ attempts to undermine animal agriculture are likely to continue. His blunder in appointing Kessler and his transparent influence on Niemiec’s hiring do not appear to have damaged his political prospects. Recent polling by Cygnal suggests Polis remains popular in Colorado, and The Denver Post says, “The Boulder Democrat has consistently polled well during his first term and is widely favored to win (reelection) this year.”

Colorado’s Kessler Out At State Vet Board After Calling Ranchers ‘Lazy’