News Update
Dec. 9, 2010

NCBA Reveals Educational Platform for 2011 Cattle Industry Convention

Innovative, lively educational sessions with direct access to the leading authorities on vital cattle industry issues, as well as discussion with other producers facing similar challenges, are available at the 2011 Cattle Industry Convention and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Trade Show in Denver, Colo., starting Feb. 2.

“Today’s political and business environment is pressuring both the short-term profitability and long-term viability of many cattlemen. These unprecedented pressures originate from uncertainty in political, economic, trade, and consumer demand domains,” said Tom Field, executive director of producer education for the NCBA. “As the beef cattle industry defends private property rights, individual freedom, and modern agricultural practices, the need to empower producers with knowledge becomes even more important.”

The 18th annual Cattlemen’s College® is a tremendous opportunity for all segments of the cattle industry to gain knowledge on the new ideas and technologies available to improve profitability. Sponsored by Pfizer Animal Health, this daylong event offers 20 sessions that cover all aspects of cattle production and marketing. To address today’s challenging industry environment, the 2011 curriculum will focus on three primary tracks:

• Technology Track — focus on genomics and reproductive management
• External Forces Track — focus on consumer and environmental issues
• Business Management Track — focus on risk and business management

Attendees can pick and choose from the three tracks or focus solely on one track of personal interest.

Cattlemen’s College registration includes a networking lunch, sponsored by Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB), and a complimentary ticket to the CattleFax Annual Outlook Seminar. Students get an exceptionally good rate, and a full list of sessions and confirmed speakers can be found at www.beefusa.org. Space is limited. Be sure to register early to guarantee a spot in your course choices.

— Adapted from release by NCBA.

NCBA Opposes House Continuing Resolution with Food Safety Bill Attached

The NCBA yesterday, Dec. 8, sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) opposing the trillion dollar Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the federal government through September 2011. NCBA Executive Director of Legislative Affairs Kristina Butts said the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Safety Modernization Act should be considered only as a standalone bill.

“NCBA opposes the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act because food safety knows no size. We are disappointed House leadership included it in the CR without allowing an up or down vote on a bill as “robust and sweeping” as the food safety bill,” Butts said. “The CR is not the appropriate means to consider the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. NCBA strongly opposes the CR in its current form.”

Specifically, NCBA is opposed to language offered by Senators John Tester (D-Mont.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) exempting small-scale food producers and processors from the legislation included in the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. Butts said food safety knows no size and federal food safety policy should be based on sound science and applied to all food producers and processors regardless of size or proximity to the market. NCBA opposed the food safety legislation in the Senate and joined 16 organizations representing food producers and processers opposing the Tester/Hagan language in the House.

According to NCBA’s letter opposing the CR, “Food safety is too important to everyone involved in the production and consumption of food to be dealt with in this manner.”

“Rather than continuing down the path of funding our government and federal programs through the CR and omnibus bills, Congress should make it a priority to go through a more methodical, transparent and timely appropriations process,” Butts said. “NCBA understands the critical importance of funding our government and federal programs as well as the importance of food safety. However, we believe these issues deserve the due diligence of Congress. We urge House members to simply provide a short-term extension to the expiring CR.” 

— Release by NCBA.

Cattle and Beef Market Signals ‘Quite Obvious’

Cattle and beef markets across the board have jumped sharply in the past several weeks and both Live Cattle and Feeder Cattle futures prices suggest that the industry is in for an extended period of largely unprecedented cattle prices.

If allowed to work freely, markets will provide whatever signals are needed to take care of any market situation. Right now, the signals are quite obvious: Calf prices will continue to rise until there is sufficient incentive to increase cow-calf production.

“The predicament now is that current feeder values are high and going higher, which makes it difficult to retain heifers, and yet we have to push calf prices overall high enough to make the value of future production enough to encourage heifer retention,” said Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University (OSU) Cooperative Extension livestock marketing specialist.

Peel added that this process is typical of every cattle cycle. However, never before have there been such limited beef inventories that the tradeoff was quite so dramatic.

Another prevailing signal is the need to reduce use of expensive feed grains, leading to the need to encourage forage-based weight gains.

“Despite very high prices, especially for calves, the value of additional weight gain continues to be very strong, encouraging more weight gain outside of feedlots,” Peel said. “This stocker value of gain only occurs at heavy feeder weights as there is a steep rollback in prices for feeders up to 600 pounds.”

The final incentive is that enhanced cow-calf values and enhanced stocker values make forage worth more. This has implications on the general value of forage for both rangeland and improved pasture areas, and provides for specific regional concerns as well.

“Enhanced pasture value suggests increased forage production,” Peel said. “However, most of the discretionary pasture areas also compete with enhanced crop values, thereby limiting forage expansion.”

In areas like the southeastern United States, high fuel prices add an additional shipping disadvantage to cattle production in the region. In contrast, raising cattle in areas such as the Western Great Plains and Intermountain Rocky Mountains have a relative regional advantage in terms of production.

“These regional adjustments are long-term in nature,” Peel said. “Over time, we will likely see feedlot production shift marginally back to the Midwest, while cow-calf and stocker production shift marginally more to the Central Plains and Rocky Mountain regions.”

— Release by OSU Cooperative Extension.

Study Indicates Meat Demand Affected by Media Coverage of Animal Welfare

U.S. consumers are increasingly interested in how their food is grown, and a recent study shows that media coverage of animal welfare issues does have an impact on demand for meat.

The study, that involved a search of U.S. newspapers and magazines from 1982 to 2008, suggested that media attention to animal welfare issues has not directly impacted beef demand. It did, however, reduce pork and poultry demand. A fact sheet and other information is available online at www.agmanager.info and search for publication MF-2951.

“While beef demand was found to not be directly influenced by increased media attention to animal welfare issues, this should not be interpreted as the beef industry being immune,” said Glynn Tonsor, a Kansas State University (K-State) Research and Extension agricultural economist. He, along with Nicole Olynk, assistant professor of agricultural economics at Purdue, conducted the study.

The research found that increased media attention caused a reallocation of consumers’ expenditures to nonmeat food rather than a reallocation of expenditures across competing meat products, Tonsor said.

While the study is a first assessment on the topic, Tonsor said, much additional research is needed.

“Perhaps most importantly, the changes to estimated consumer demand need to be paired with production cost impacts associated with adjustments in on-farm production practices in order to derive estimates of net economic influences on consumers, livestock producers, and society, in general,” Tonsor said. “This study supports this and related evaluations to improve the understanding of how increasing pressure to adjust on-farm practices to reflect societal pressures regarding animal well-being is economically impacting market participants throughout the livestock and meat supply chain.”

— Release by K-State Research and Extension.

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