News Update
July 8, 2010

NCBA Requests Extension on Proposed GIPSA Rule Comment Period

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has requested a 120-day extension to the public comment period for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) proposed rule on livestock marketing. The proposed rule, announced June 18, suggests major changes to the way producers can market their cattle.

In a letter sent this morning to GIPSA Administrator J. Dudley Butler, NCBA President Steve Foglesong reiterated NCBA’s concerns with the proposed rule and emphasized the need for additional time to thoroughly analyze its potential legal and economic effects on U.S. cattle producers.

“The Secretary of Agriculture referred to this as one of the most sweeping reforms of the Packers and Stockyards Act,” Foglesong stated. “As such, it’s extremely important that we thoroughly understand the rule and both its intended, and unintended, consequences on the U.S. cattle community.”

NCBA believes the scope of the proposed rule goes well beyond what Congress intended under the 2008 Farm Bill.

“American cattle producers are innovators who have worked hard over the past several years to develop alternative marketing arrangements and marketing alliances to get paid for the value they add to their cattle,” Foglesong continued.“Whether intended or not, we believe that this rule jeopardizes these long-standing marketing arrangements that compensate producers for providing higher quality cattle.”

To view the full letter, click here.

AMI Defends Importance of Meat in Diet in Comments to USDA and HHS

The American Meat Institute (AMI) defended the importance of meat and poultry in the diet in comments today to the USDA and Health and Human Services (HHS). The comments were given in response to the recent release of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Technical Report.

AMI Director of Scientific Affairs Betsy Booren, noted in her testimony that meat and poultry is allocated a relatively small part of the pyramid, yet the benefits from its share of the pyramid are significant.

Booren pointed out that in addition to protein, meat and poultry also are important and rich sources of micronutrients such as iron, selenium, Vitamins A, B12, and folic acid. These nutrients are not present in plant foods or, if they are, they have low bioavailability. Supplementation, while useful, does not completely address issues of bioavailability.

Also significant was the discussion during the May 2010 meeting of Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (Committee) that the meat, poultry, fish, eggs, nuts food group is currently consumed at or less than the current recommended amount. This conclusion likely is a surprise to many who are under the mistaken impression that Americans overeat meat and poultry products, Booren said.

“As you develop the Dietary Guidelines, we urge you to word the recommendation in such a way that [it] does not lead consumers to reduce their meat, poultry and beans consumption. Language in the technical report recommending that consumers ‘moderate’ their meat and poultry consumption may be perceived as advice to ‘reduce’ their consumption, which could have unintended consequences by creating nutritional deficiencies,” Booren told USDA and HHS.

Concerns about unintended consequences are not a new concept to the Committee. At the April 2010 meeting, Committee member Eric Rimm discussed his concern that a recommendation to eat a low-fat diet in the 1970s led in part to overconsumption of simple carbohydrates, and this change in diet may have contributed to Americans’ current obesity epidemic. AMI encouraged the agencies to consider this with respect to meat and poultry guidelines and not create a similar mistake.

Booren also addressed some sections of the report that reveal a strong bias against processed meats, largely due to concerns about sodium levels in some products.

Booren said the industry is actively involved in efforts to reduce sodium in its products with more than 50% of the processed meat and poultry market undergoing recent sodium reduction reformulation. Some companies are promoting their efforts through labeling “reduced sodium.” Others are handling it more quietly, fearing that such labeling is the adverse marketing equivalent of a “Mr. Yuck” sticker on a package.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans was first released in 1980 and is the basis for federal nutrition policy and education. The Dietary Guidelines Committee’s technical report will serve as the basis for a revision of these guidelines. HHS and USDA are expected to publish their revisions later this year.

To view Booren’s comments, go to http://www.meatami.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/60817.

— Release by AMI.

Feeding Wheat Grain to Livestock? Get it Tested for Vomitoxin First

In a year when overly wet conditions and a head scab outbreak are significantly affecting Ohio’s wheat crop, there is no room for assumptions that grain is toxin-free and safe to feed to livestock.

To avoid any health problems in cattle, swine, poultry and other animals, growers are highly encouraged to test the grain for vomitoxin levels before any of the feed or grain byproduct is destined for consumption.

“Farmers shouldn’t think that it’s OK to handle or feed scabby grain without actually testing and knowing how much toxin is in it,” said Pierce Paul, an Ohio State University (OSU) Extension smallgrains specialist and plant pathologist. “I always emphasize testing.”

Wheat in some portions of Ohio is experiencing upwards of 60% incidence of head scab — a disease that attacks the wheat during flowering under wet, humid conditions. The disease can affect yields. The fungal pathogen that causes head scab also produces mycotoxins (most notably vomitoxin) in the grain that can be unsafe for livestock if consumed in high levels.

“Much of Ohio’s wheat crop is testing positive for vomitoxin, with results ranging from 1 part per million to as high as 10 parts per million (ppm),” said Stan Smith, an OSU Extension program assistant. “In some cases the grain elevator is accepting the wheat after discounting the price anywhere from a nickel per bushel up to more than a dollar per bushel. In some cases the wheat has been rejected at any price by the elevator.”

The situation, while not ideal for wheat growers, may be an opportunity for livestock producers who value wheat for its higher protein content compared to corn. However, livestock producers must recognize the sensitivities of each livestock species to vomitoxin before incorporating any wheat grain into feed rations.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just revised its guidelines for rationing vomitoxin-infected feed to livestock. Wheat containing up to 10 ppm of vomitoxin can be fed to adult beef cattle with the stipulation that the total ration should not exceed 10 ppm for beef cattle and should not exceed 5 ppm for adult dairy cattle. For calves and other animals except swine, wheat containing vomitoxin at up to 5 ppm can be fed if it composes no more than 40% of the diet. Wheat containing 5 ppm vomitoxin can be fed to swine if it composes no more than 20% of the diet. The new FDA Guidance for Industry document can be found in its entirety here.

Bill Shulaw, an OSU Extension beef and sheep veterinarian, said that swine are most susceptible to vomitoxin-infected grain, while beef cattle have the highest tolerance. However, vomitoxin isn’t the only mycotoxin produced by the Fusarium pathogen that farmers have to worry about.

“Hence, the importance of testing the grain suspected of being contaminated,” said Shulaw. “Although swine are the most susceptible to the effects of vomitoxin (vomiting and feed refusal) and cattle are more resistant, some of the other mycotoxins produced by Fusarium species, such as T-2 toxin or fumonisin, can cause clinical and subclinical disease. If farmers plan to feed wheat or other grain they suspect has mycotoxin contamination, testing a representative sample would be wise.”

The occurrence of head scab in wheat does not automatically mean vomitoxin, but high levels of scabby kernels in harvested grain are suspect and should be tested.

For more information on mycotoxins, click here. Information on head scab and vomitoxin can be found at http://agcrops.osu.edu/ and http://beef.osu.edu/beef/beefJune3010.html.

— Release by OSU Extension.

Tri-State Team to Look at Air Quality in Beef Barns

A tri-state team of researchers and university specialists will soon engage in a three-year study looking at gases emitted from mono-slope beef barns and how building management affects the emissions.

The team is composed of researchers from the USDA’s Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) in Clay Center, Neb.; agricultural engineering specialists from South Dakota State University (SDSU) in Brookings, S.D.; and Extension program specialists from Iowa State University (ISU) in Ames, Iowa.

One purpose of the study is to gather baseline data for the levels of gas emissions from mono-slope beef barns for housing beef. The study will involve a total of four mono-slope beef barns in South Dakota and Iowa.

“Currently, beef producers report estimated air emissions from their concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) based on data from open beef feedlots in the summer. These values may be too high for mono-slope beef barns. Data from this study will be useful in providing more accurate values for air emissions,” said Mindy Spiehs, animal scientist with USMARC.

The study will also evaluate two different manure-handling systems to determine which system emits lower levels of gases in the air. One barn system contains a manure pack, which remains in the barn until the cattle are removed. The other barn system involves the weekly removal and storage of manure from around the bedded pack until it can be field applied.

“The study will provide information about which system is better for reducing gas emissions,” remarks Dick Nicolai, SDSU Agricultural engineer specialist and principal investigator for the study.

“A third, but important goal is to help beef producers learn how they can reduce the emissions from their mono-slope beef barns,” said Beth Doran, ISU Extension beef program specialist.

Funding for this research comes from a grant sponsored by USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and is one of 11 projects across the U.S. that addresses air quality issues. The projects will provide research-based information to develop effective mitigation strategies and best management practices to enhance air quality.

— Release by ISU Extension.

— Compiled by Mathew Elliott, assistant editor, Angus Productions Inc.