News Update

News Update
Dec. 5, 2007

Cattlemen Eager for President’s Signature on Peru Trade Deal

The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA) today by a vote of 77 to 18.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) called the move positive for global trade and U.S. agriculture. With beef production comprising less than 8% of Peru’s total agriculture gross domestic product, Peru could be an outstanding export market for U.S. beef. For U.S. cattle producers, the improved access provided in this agreement could amount to roughly $15 million per year.

“Under this agreement, Peru will immediately eliminate duties on high-quality beef and provide duty-free tariff rate quotas (TRQs) on standard beef cuts,” says Stacey Satterlee, NCBA director of legislative affairs.

Other key components of this agreement are Peru’s implementation of World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)-consistent import measures for beef, and Peru’s agreement to recognize the equivalence of the U.S. beef inspection systems. Peru has also committed in writing to specific Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) terms.

President Bush, a staunch supporter of the Peru agreement, will likely waste no time in signing the agreement, NCBA said in a news release. Focus now turns to trade agreements with Colombia and Panama, currently awaiting Congressional consideration.

Like the Peru free trade agreement, deals with Colombia and Panama allow for duty-free treatment of high-quality U.S. beef on Day 1 of implementation. Both Colombia and Panama have put in place import measures consistent with OIE guidelines and have agreed to recognize the U.S. beef inspection system as equivalent. These agreements have also broken down pre-existing SPS and technical barriers.

“NCBA’s cattle-producing members need Congress to step up and pass the Colombia and Panama deals so the U.S. agricultural sector can begin reaping the benefits of these well-negotiated agreements,” Satterlee says. “The best way for America’s farmers and ranchers to achieve prosperity is for Congress to support expanding trade within the global marketplace.”

Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) called the vote a detriment to the U.S. cattle industry. Its reasons for opposition were outlined in a release posted in the Dec. 4, 2007, Angus e-List. R-CALF USA has been working to see the following general improvements included in all trade agreements that are important to the U.S. cattle industry:

The classification of cattle and beef as perishable and cyclical items, and considered like/kind products.
The establishment of quantity and price safeguards.
The strengthening of rules of origin (born, raised and slaughtered).
The upward harmonization of import health and safety standards.

“We hope the issues that we brought up for discussion will be considered before moving forward on any trade agreements that have implications for independent U.S. cattle producers,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian.

— Adapted from releases provided by NCBA and R-CALF USA.

Purchased Hay May Carry liver flukes

Drought-stricken producers buying hay from out of state may need to take extra precautions when it comes to parasite control.

“It is possible to move liver flukes in hay that is taken from an area known to have flukes,” says James Hawkins, Merial Veterinary Professional Services associate director. “Under ideal conditions, liver fluke cysts can survive on hay for a period of several months. Cattle can ingest those cysts and become infected with liver flukes.”

Liver fluke infections can rob producers of dollars in the form of reduced weaning weights, pregnancy rates and rate of gain, and, in some cases, can even cause death. With continuing drought conditions in the West and Southeast, Hawkins says liver flukes will have more opportunities to spread by hay and through infected cattle being sold and distributed throughout the country.

“Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee are in a severe drought,” says Christine Navarre, Louisiana State University (LSU) Extension veterinarian. “Producers are downsizing herds and bringing in hay from surrounding areas known for liver flukes. At this point, feeding hay is about the only thing producers can do if they want to keep their cattle.”

If liver flukes are introduced to new areas through hay or purchased cattle, producers may face even greater losses if proper precautions aren’t taken.

“When liver fluke-infected cattle are combined with cattle naive to the parasite, the naive cattle are more likely to develop clinical disease instead of the subclinical disease normally seen in fluke-endemic regions,” Navarre says. “And that means greater production losses. Also, liver flukes can become established in the area, and then producers will have an ongoing problem.”

Liver flukes or other internal parasite loads can further undermine cattle that are already nutritionally compromised due to drought.

“If cattle are nutritionally deprived and have parasites, health and development problems can compound other health issues,” Navarre says. “The overall health of the cattle will continue to decline and they likely will not recover as quickly when conditions return to normal. The bottom line is that producers will sacrifice profits if parasites aren’t controlled.”

Hawkins says producers should continue to treat cattle for parasites during and after drought. Plus, he says, producers purchasing hay or cattle from liver fluke-endemic regions should be sure to include liver fluke control as part of a strategic parasite control program.

“Not all parasite control products kill liver flukes, so producers should be sure to read product labels carefully or contact their local veterinarian to learn more about liver fluke treatment options,” Hawkins advises.

- Adapted from a Merial release.

Weed Control Meeting

Farmers and scientists see weeds different ways, says Ohio State University (OSU) scientist Robyn Wilson, who studies agricultural and environmental decision-making. She'll discuss the disparity and its effect on weed management in a free talk Friday, Dec. 7 from noon to 1 p.m. at locations in Columbus and Wooster.

The presentation, titled “Improving Communication About Integrated Weed Management: A Comparison of Practitioners and Researchers,” is part of the autumn seminar series of Ohio State’s Department of Horticulture and Crop Science.

Attend in 244 Kottman Hall on Ohio State’s Columbus campus, 2021 Coffey Rd., or in 121 Fisher Auditorium on the Wooster campus of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC), 1680 Madison Ave.

“Weed control is an essential part of all crop production systems,” notes OSU Extension’s Weed Control Guide for Ohio Field Crops. “Despite large expenditures for weed control, it is estimated that losses in U.S. crops due to weeds left uncontrolled exceed $7.5 billion annually.”

For more information, contact Julie Hering, (614) 292-2001, hering.1@osu.edu.

— Adapted from release provided by the OSU

College of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences.

— compiled by Mathew Elliott, assistant editor, Angus Productions Inc. (API)