News Update
Aug. 19, 2009

Quick glimpses

• The Calgary World Herald reports ranchers in the area are concerned about possible drought-induced feed shortages this fall, prompting some to cull more cows. An Aug. 18 article by Lisa Schmidt notes that the province’s 1.85 million head could shrink 30% this year, on the heels of a 10% shrink last year. Click here for the article.
• October live cattle futures opened today on the Chicago Board of Trade at $88.83, December futures at $88.45. September feeder cattle opened at $101.25, October at $101.30.
• Argentina may import cattle for the first time, according to Bloomberg.com. An Aug. 18 article by Matthew Craze notes drought as the cause of cattle losses in the world’s biggest beef-consuming nation. Click here for the article.
• Feedstuffs reports that Panama has opened its market to Canadian beef and pork. Click here for the article.
• Meat International.com’s Evegen Vorotnikov reports that, according to the American Federation of Meat Exporters (AFME), the U.S. increased beef exports to Russia 22% in the first five months of the year. Click here for the article.
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) today released its Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, with comments regarding the continuing liquidation of the national cow herd and increased levels of beef imports. Click here for the web site from which you can download a pdf of the current document.
• Australia’s Stock & Land reported this morning that King Island abattoir operators JB Swift will work with Pfizer Animal Genetics to develop DNA tests to protect the integrity of its brand, King Island Beef. Click here to access the article by Peter Austin.
• The August 2009 Angus Beef Bulletin EXTRA e-mails tomorrow. If you are not a subscriber and want to be, send us an e-mail.

K-State Vet Says Beef Industry Doing a Lot Right, But More Work to Do

Kansas State University (K-State) veterinarian Dan Thomson believes that the U.S. beef industry is doing a lot of things right when it comes to animal welfare — but there’s plenty more work to do when it comes to perceptions and realities about animal welfare.

“There isn’t anyone in this room who is not concerned about animal welfare,” said Thomson, speaking to attendees at the 2009 K-State Beef Conference Aug. 13. He said that while most producers work in an ethical and humane manner, the industry has not done a good job of educating the non-farm public of standard management practices or of reminding citizens that beef producers are food producers.

Speaking on the topic “Animal Welfare — It’s Your Business,” Thomson, who is an associate professor in clinical sciences in K-State’s College of Veterinary Medicine, said that concerns about the subject first arose surrounding the use of animals for research purposes. That concern has now spilled over to livestock production for food purposes.

He reminded that there is a difference between animal welfare and animal rights, noting that those who believe in animal rights likely will not be influenced by science.

Despite a well-funded, well-educated effort in this country to get people to stop eating meat, Thomson said that a study conducted in 2007 showed that 97.4% of Americans eat meat. That same study examined consumer attitudes about agriculture and farm animal welfare. It showed that several other topics were of more concern to U.S. citizens. In descending order by priority, the responses were: human poverty (23.95%); U.S. health care system (23.03%); food safety (21.75%); the environment (13.91%); financial well-being of farmers (8.16%); food prices (5.06%) and well-being of farm animals (4.15%).

“We are more carnivorous than we were in 1990,” he said, noting, however, that the U.S. percent of income spent on food has gone down.

Thomson said that food in the United States is very close to free. He cited USDA data that show the average citizen in China spends about 34% of personal income on food consumed in the home — almost six times more than U.S. citizens. Russia spends 28% of personal income on food consumed at home; and Japan, 15%. In comparison, on average, U.S. citizens spend 6% percent of their personal income on food consumed in the home. 

The scientist said people in developed countries like the United States approach the topic of food production from a very different perspective than citizens in developing countries. He cited the vast array of choices U.S. shoppers have at supermarkets and restaurants.

In contrast, parents in many other countries on a daily basis deal with not having enough food for their families — let alone a choice of foods.

“I believe our next big international conflict will be over food. I don’t think it will be about oil,” Thomson said.

Although he believes that the industry as a whole is taking good care of the animals it raises, Thomson encouraged beef industry professionals to disarm their critics with these actions:

• Be transparent and do everything you can to educate non-livestock producers. There is no more Mr. Green Jeans on television, so it’s up to producers themselves to educate and advocate;
  
• Do not engage in inhumane practices and ensure that those you hire treat animals in a humane fashion;
  
• Recognize that euthanasia is the humane way to handle downed animals;
  
• Castrate male animals at a young age;
  
• Dehorn animals at a young age;
  
• Make sure your animals are preconditioned;
  
• Work to reduce livestock stress during transport and other handling activities; and
  
• Be involved in industry groups that are diligently working to represent livestock producers.
  

Thomson said he believes that the beef industry should work together to form one welfare assessment tool, subscribe to the practices outlined by it and use it as a marketing tool. If the industry does not work together to make this happen, he said, one will likely be imposed by politicians or others who may not be familiar with agriculture production.

— Release by Mary Lou Peter, K-State Research and Extension, www.ksre.ksu.edu/news

Note: The above article is posted as “news coverage” of “other industry meetings” in the API Virtual Library under the Meeting Sites pull-down menu.

State Hay Supplies Rebound But Quality Concerns Exist

Wet conditions this spring and summer have created an abundance of hay for the upcoming winter feeding season.

The increase in volume is welcome news to many hay and livestock producers who suffered through the droughts of 2007 and 2008 that kept hay supplies below normal across much of the state. The increase in supply means demand will be lower than in past years. This likely will drive down prices across the state.

“The abundance of hay this year will drop prices, especially for hay that’s fed to cattle,” said Tom Keene, hay marketing specialist in the University of Kentucky (UK) College of Agriculture. “The higher-quality hay that is used for horses will also see a drop, but it won’t be quite as dramatic as with hay for cattle. High-quality forages in square bales are still going to command a decent price.”

While hay supplies are in good shape here, that’s not the case in other parts of the country. Texas is experiencing a severe drought, and hay supplies will likely be short there. Growers in western states had trouble with wet conditions early on in the season and delayed first cuttings, but recent dry conditions should allow them to boost their supplies with later cuttings.

Keene said Kentucky hay producers may have an interest in exporting some of their excess supply to livestock producers in drought areas, but they should consider hay quality and transportation costs when determining a price for their product.

While hay is plentiful in the state, several quality issues exist due to delayed harvests. Ideal haymaking conditions were few and sporadic this year. Many first cuttings were delayed, but growers who planned for at least two cuttings this season likely will still get them. Keene said many second cuttings were made in the past seven to 10 days.

Growers who applied nutrients to fields early in the spring likely saw an increase in volume and quality of their hay. However, high fertilizer prices kept some farmers from applying nutrients then, which means some of the hay crop may lack sufficient quantities of nutrients.

Since questions exist about hay quality, it is extremely important for producers to get their hay tested this year, Keene said.

“Hay producers sell their product, either through cash markets or their livestock; so it’s important that they know about the product they are selling,” he said. “Knowing the hay quality helps with pricing and allows livestock producers to come up with formulas for feed rations this winter.”

The Kentucky Department of Agriculture offers hay-testing services. Producers can contact their local agriculture and natural resources Extension agent if they need more information or want to have their hay tested through the KDA program.

In addition to testing their hay, producers may want to apply nutrients to their fields in the next few months to help them recover from previous drought years, especially if they’ve held off in the past due to high fertilizer costs. Nutrient costs are significantly lower than in past months.

In a survey of median prices of various Midwest retailers, diammonium phosphate (DAP) prices dropped a total of 55% by July compared to the record highs of late fall 2008. Urea recorded a drop of 30%, and potash declined 18% during the same time frame. Despite the lower average prices, differences in prices among retailers for the same product ranged from around $150 to more than $400 per ton, depending on the fertilizer. This is partially due to many retailers trying to recoup the costs of stock purchased when prices were high.

“This is a good time to shop around,” said Greg Halich, UK assistant extension professor in agriculture economics. “You can truck fertilizer a long way to make up even a $100 per ton difference in fertilizer price.”

— Release by Katie Pratt for the UK College of Agriculture.

— Compiled by Shauna Hermel, editor, Angus Productions Inc.