A range of programs managed by USDA include boards for commodity groups. In many cases, the agency appoints board members to monitor and manage these programs which often invest farmer money into research and promotion. The agency recently announced the appointment of 12 dairy producers and one importer to serve three-year terms on the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board.

The terms for these new appointees start immediately and end on Oct. 31, 2020.

Newly appointed producers are:
Region 1 (Alaska, Oregon, and Washington)
Dolores J. Werkhoven, Monroe, Wash.

Region 4 (Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)
Orville D. Miller, Hutchinson, Kan.

Region 6 (Wisconsin)
Stacy Eberle, Monroe, Wis.
Becky L. Levzow, Rio, Wis.

Region 7 (Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska)
Alex D. Peterson, Trenton, Mo.

Region 9 (Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia)
Gregory A. Gibson, Bruceton Mills, W.Va.

Region 10 (Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia)
John M. Larson, Okeechobee, Fla.

Region 12 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont)
Melissa C. Dziurgot, Durham, Conn.

Reappointed Producers are:
Region 3 (Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming)
James E. Webb, Delta, Colo.

Region 4 (Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)
William R. Anglin, Bentonville, Ark.

Region 5 (Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota)
Kathleen A. Skiba, North Branch, Minn.

Region 8 (Idaho)
John S. Ballard, Gooding, Idaho

Newly appointed Dairy Importer:
Ralph B. Hofman, Basking Ridge, N.J.

USDA established the 37-member Board under the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983. Since 1966, Congress has authorized the establishment of 22 research and promotion boards that are industry-funded and empower ag industries with a framework to pool resources and combine efforts to develop new markets, strengthen existing markets and conduct important research and promotion activities.

USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service provides oversight, paid for by industry assessments, which helps ensure fiscal accountability and program integrity. More information about the board is available on the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board page on the AMS website, including a link to the Board’s membership under the heading Organizational Structure.

More information about research and promotion programs is available on the Research and Promotion Programs page on the AMS website.

Source: USDA AMS

The debate started almost a decade ago and now appears headed to the highest court in the land. Though the case may seem trivial to some, it is not to others.

In 2008, California voters by a relatively strong margin approved Proposition 2, which led to what now is the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. The act in part prohibits the confinement of certain farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand or fully extend their limbs. California farmers had until Jan. 1, 2015, to comply. California policymakers broadened the act to prevent the sale of any eggs in the state that do not meet the California animal confinement standards.

Massachusetts has regulations now to bar the sale of eggs, pork, and veal not housed according to its new regulations, which are similar to California’s.

If the regulations imposed by a state work to ensure food safety or quality of products, that makes sense. But the regulations on how laying hens are treated in California or how animals are handled in Massachusetts reflect social values and opinions and don’t seem to be related to food safety or quality concerns. And that’s fine. The voters in those two states spoke and they have the right to eat eggs laid the way they want or eat meat from animals handled the way they like.

But that’s really not the point here, is it?

If California or Massachusetts can bar the sale of certain agricultural products based on perception or opinion, it creates a slippery regulatory slope. That slope is getting some heavy-hitting attention.

In a Dec. 21 statement, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said Alabama has joined, along with 12 other states, in two federal lawsuits filed with the U.S. Supreme Court “challenging attempts by California and Massachusetts to impose their agricultural restrictions on farmers in other states, including Alabama.”

Marshall is pretty fired up about it. Poultry production is big business in Alabama and in the Southeast.

“States and their residents have the right to set their own standards for the production of agricultural goods, especially for reasons of health and safety,” Marshall says. “However, they don’t have the right to impose restrictions on how products from other states are raised, which is what California and Massachusetts have done. Through a series of referendums, both states have attempted to impose costly restrictions on the production of certain agriculture products coming from outside their states and sold within their borders.”

The lawsuits claim the California and Massachusetts regulations violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce among states. Marshall says if left unchecked “such unconstitutional regulations could adversely affect all forms of commerce between states. The citizens of Alabama should not have to live by the liberal edicts of California and Massachusetts.”

The national discussion on how U.S. agriculture should act and look will continue to evolve as it always has, but now more than ever the discourse is restricted to the confines of party lines and political dogmas. We will see where this particular act in the overall debate leads us. Sound and level actions we hope prevail and states’ rights shine and U.S. farmers can continue to reasonably do what they do best: feed us and the world.

Good luck, take care and thanks for reading.

Tall fescue is a popular grass used for grazing, hay and erosion control in the eastern United States, but experts believe this grass could be responsible for more than $1 billion per year in livestock production losses.

A perennial bunch-type grass that grows rapidly during spring and fall, the majority of tall fescue plants contain a wild fungus that produces compounds beneficial to the plants, but toxic to livestock. The compounds created by the fungus are called “ergot alkaloids.” Animals that consume too much tall fescue containing this fungus can become afflicted with fescue toxicosis. Pasture renovation is one method that could help cut losses, said John Andrae, Clemson Extension forage specialist.

“Producers need to replant their entire pastures to reduce the potential for their livestock to fall victims to fescue toxicosis or manage toxic pastures specifically to minimize the severity of toxicosis,” Andrae said.

To help South Carolina livestock owners learn management techniques and how to replant their pastures with a new nontoxic novel-endophyte fescue, the Clemson Cooperative Extension Service and other institutions are teaming up with the Alliance for Grassland Renewal to hold one-day schools for producers in five states in 2018.

The South Carolina school will be held March 13 at the Clemson CAT building, 511 Westinghouse Road Pendleton, S.C. 29670. Other schools are: March 6 in Mt. Vernon, Missouri; March 8 in Lexington, Kentucky; March 14 in Raleigh, North Carolina and March 15 in Raphine, Virginia.

Topics addressed during each school include: fescue toxicosis: symptoms and causes, economics, establishment and first year management, drill calibration, seed and endophyte testing and transition from toxic to non-toxic fescue. A tour of field plots showing all available nontoxic novel tall fescue varieties and producer panel discussions also are included. In addition, seed companies will be on hand to discuss product they have available and cost share incentives will be discussed.

Each school runs from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Cost is $60 for anyone who registers before March 1 and $75 for anyone who registers later. Limited seating is available and pre-registration is requested. To register for the South Carolina class, go to: http://bit.ly/FescueRenovation.

Lunch, refreshments and materials will be provided.

Cold weather has struck the Southeast for the next several days with the most recent weather pattern change bringing arctic-like air to the region.

During periods of cold weather, remember the following important reminders to help cattle weather the storm:

1. Cold weather can increase intake of cattle up to 30% because of increased maintenance energy requirements. In other words, cattle are trying to stay warm, which requires increased amounts of energy in their diet to do so.
2. Cows may not be able to consume enough energy to account for their changing needs, especially if low quality forages are part of the diet (less than 52% TDN and 7% CP). Offering cattle more low-quality forage will not meet energy demands – cattle cannot physically consume enough of this forage because of the high fiber content and “gut fill factor” that occurs during the digestion process. Cattle feel full when consuming fibrous, over-mature forage, which reduces their intake potential. Avoid supplemental feed products designed to improve intake of low-quality forage to decrease potential animal health and digestive tract compaction risks during cold weather.
3. Provide higher quality forage during periods of cold weather and a daily energy supplement (example: up to 0.5% of animal body weight per day of a digestible fiber-based supplement like soybean hulls) to help meet increased demands.
4. Feed cattle in the late afternoon or early evening. This can help cattle better maintain their body temperature as ambient temperatures begin to drop from heat produced during the digestion process.

For additional information on cattle energy demands during cold weather, visit http://www.aces.edu/go/889.

Mullenix is a specialist with Auburn’s Animal Science and Forage Extension Team.

His original name was Hugh because he was one of the tallest black Brangus bulls I have ever seen loaded in a gooseneck.

However, like all good animal names that are assigned prior to a personality review, Hugh was subsequently changed by Daddy to “Yogi” and then “Yahgah” in keeping with his aloof personality and propensity to become alarmed if you happened to approach him from behind while he was dining in his welcome pen under the barn. It was like waking up a baby elephant from his nap. There was no room for escape.

Yahgah’s quickness inevitably landed him back at the sale barn, but he did stay long enough to produce a charismatic crop of long-eared, floppy-dewlapped heifers that received a special collective name upon their entry into the replacement heifer herd.

A couple of “The Yahgahs” even gained individual monikers befitting their elevated stature and powerful presence. Alfa/Alpha (from the television character Alf because he was furry and funny, or because this heifer was clearly dominant—we use both) and Helga.

Despite her flight-prone genetics, Helga grew up with a unique ability to ignore any concept of personal space. She is always the one who follows too close for comfort when you have a bucket in your hand — or even when you don’t. Not unlike some people I know, there is a fine line between friendly and aggressive with Helga.

And we all know the rule, trouble will befall any cow you deem as special, and especially those you choose to name.

Sunday mornings at the ranch this winter seemed to be fraught with unnecessary trouble. After a disastrous uterine prolapse that even the vet couldn’t ameliorate, there was yet another incident a week later.

After breakfast, I was prepping for early service while my sister left to feed the pairs near the house. She returned immediately with the feed truck and ran to get the ATV. The speeding ATV then emerged from the pasture with a baby calf strapped in the back and mama following closely behind. It was Helga and her heifer.

I didn’t ask for details. Somehow my sister had accidently run over the calf with the feed truck. She thought for sure that its ribs were crushed and that internal bleeding would likely ensue. I knew how she felt, and I wanted to throw up.

For those of us who have been in that situation, there is nothing worse than experiencing the feeling that you have caused unnecessary pain and possible death to a helpless individual that God entrusted you to take care of. The guilt is overwhelming.

In between reliving the video replay in your mind and administering the most logical veterinary care, you pray even more fervently than you usually do. You pray for mercy and for healing beyond reason. You tell God that you trust His plan but you also remind Him that you know He is still in the miracle business and that you need Him to heal this calf. You know that He can.

And He did. That afternoon, the calf was standing up and nursing. A week later, she’s running up and down the catch pen, daring the horses to race her. 

I can’t explain how a 100-pound calf can be run over by a three-quarter-ton pickup truck and live. But I do know that sometimes we receive gifts we don’t deserve.

I can’t speak for other vocations, but those of us who choose agriculture also choose a way of life that requires the execution and recognition of miracles. Thankfully, God is still in the miracle business so that we can continue to name our cows. Thanks be to God!

Your sows’ feet matter. As a leading cause of sow removal, lameness impacts feed intake and reproductive performance. Don’t let lameness be the reason your sows have to leave your farm.

Results from a recent study measuring the impact of trimming long claws show sows with trimmed feet produced 0.3 more pigs born alive per litter than non-trimmed sows when averaged across two farrowing events. By trimming sows’ toes, you can improve productivity on your farm.

“While treatment of long toes in pigs is effective, prevention is a more economical approach,” says Zachary Rambo, swine research nutritionist for Zinpro Corp. “We’ve seen reductions in long toes with the inclusion of the right minerals in the diet and maintaining an appropriate sow claw trimming routine. The decision to implement trimming largely depends on the baseline prevalence of long toes and the availability of labor.”

Claw trimming can help sows experiencing lameness caused by unequal weight bearing on overgrown toes and dew claws. Trimming the claw to restore it to its normal condition helps control claw horn overgrowth and limits lameness. Also, correcting existing claw lesions may further benefit sow performance.

Follow 4 steps for healthy feet
With a four-step claw trimming technique, you can help ensure the well-being and productivity of your pigs:

1. Trim the toes. The ideal toe length for a sow is about 50 millimeters. Use nippers to shorten a toe (several increments may be necessary). After each cut, inspect the toe to determine if another can be safely done. You may have cases in which a sow has one overgrown toe and one short, stunted toe. With this type of foot, it may be impossible to match the length of the short toe.

2. Trim dew claws. “Overgrown dew claws are prone to injury and can interfere with normal locomotion of the sow,” Rambo says. “You want your pigs’ dew claw horn to be approximately 20 mm long, or even with the coronary band.”

Just like trimming the toes, use your nippers to reduce dew claw length in increments until it is at a desirable length. Then use an angle grinder to round off the end of the dew claws. Use a grinder to remove loose and undermined horn tissue. Do this until the reattachment of the horn with the underlying tissues become evident. This procedure must be done with care to avoid damaging the corium and causing bleeding.

“Make sure not to draw blood from the claw when trimming,” Rambo says. “If you draw blood, you’re trimming too aggressively and have penetrated the corium. It is better to leave a little extra horn than to remove too much.”

3. Balance the sole and heel. You want to use a grinder to reduce the sole depth. The goal is to have a flat and level sole area across both claws for functional weight bearing of the foot. “It is common for the outside, or lateral, claw to be more overgrown than the inside, or medial, claw. The lateral likely will need more sole horn removed,” Rambo says. “The medial claw often only needs flattening, with minimal sole or horn removal.”

If the heel of the pig is overgrown, remove soft tissue with the grinder. The heel should not be trimmed all the way flat to match the sole, as it acts as a “first impact” shock absorber when the sow walks.

4. Straighten the dorsal wall. Toe overgrowth often curves or buckles the dorsal wall, making it concave. The wall should be straight from the coronary band to the bearing surface. Use the angle grinder to straighten the wall by removing excess wall horn below the area where the buckling occurs.

Preventing lameness can help keep your operation profitable by keeping sows in your herd longer. Keep long claws at bay with the right nutrition and with proactive foot trimming. Swine producers, veterinarians and nutritionists can learn more about sow nutritional needs and the Feeding for 30 Program by visiting feedingfor30.com or facebook.com/Feedingfor30.

Purina Animal Nutrition launched the Feeding for 30 Program in 2012 with the goal of sharing nutrition and management advice and research to help the industry move toward and sustain 30 piglets per sow per year. The industry-wide initiative now includes partnerships with Zinpro Corp. and DSM Nutritional Products.

Source: Purina Animal Nutrition, Zinpro Corp.

Archer Daniels Midland Company and Vland Biotech Group Co., Ltd. have reached a joint development agreement for the development and commercialization of enzymes for animal feed applications. 

In addition to ADM’s research center in Decatur, Illinois, ADM will open a new U.S. enzyme research and development lab in California that will directly support activities being undertaken in the joint development agreement. Vland will also conduct research and development in its Qingdao research laboratory, which will be upgraded to a new state-of-the-art facility. 

Under the terms of the agreement, the companies will share enzyme-producing strains as a basis for the development of feed enzymes that will improve animal nutrition and health. Products developed under the agreement will be commercialized by both companies. 

“This agreement and the opening of our new enzyme lab will significantly enhance our ability to develop products for the fast-growing enzyme market,” said Todd Werpy, ADM’s chief technology officer. “The agreement will give our research and development team access to new enzyme strains, and the new U.S.-based enzyme research lab will provide us with the resources to use those strains to develop new, state-of-the-art feed enzymes. We’re looking forward to adding these capabilities to our already strong array of animal nutrition products and solutions.”

“This agreement is another important step as we continue to expand our capabilities in bioactives, including enzymes and novel ingredients for the food, pharmaceutical and animal feed industries,” said Vikram Luthar, ADM’s president, bioactives. “We are continuing to build our portfolio in order to offer complete and innovative solutions to customers in these exciting and rapidly growing markets.” 

“As a high-tech enterprise focused on enzymes, Vland is committed to seeking partners around the world to build a global technological innovation system,” said Vland president Chen Gang. “This agreement between Vland and ADM to engage in the development of feed enzymes, and the establishment of new research centers in the U.S. and Qingdao, are important steps. We are looking forward to future collaborations and the opportunity to offer effective solutions to customers in this exciting and rapidly growing market.”

About Vland 

Vland Biotech Inc., is one of the leading biotechnology companies in China. Based in Qingdao, the company specializes in four product categories: enzymes, probiotics, vaccines and animal health products. 

About ADM

ADM is one of the world’s largest agricultural processors and food ingredient providers, with approximately 32,000 employees serving customers in more than 160 countries. Its global value chain includes approximately 500 crop procurement locations, 250 ingredient manufacturing facilities, 38 innovation centers and the world’s premier crop transportation network. 

Source: ADM

A One Health approach brings together leaders in human and veterinary medicine, human health professions, the food industry and public health to preserve the efficacy of antibiotics. Leaders from across these sectors work together to create a common understanding and best set of solutions that help advance the responsible use of antibiotics, protect animal health and well-being and safeguard human health.

“We’re all working together to make sure we’re preserving antibiotics so that the response we achieve today is the same response we’ll get in 10 years in both human and animal medicine,” said Doug Hilbig, DVM, Beef Technical Services at Zoetis. “The responsibility of keeping these important resources available and effective doesn’t, and can’t, just fall to those directly caring for cattle. When animals get sick, we all have an obligation to help them regain health.” 

Several organizations share positive messages about proper use of antibiotics to the nonagricultural community. For example, the Food and Drug Administration communicates about their rigorous approval process for animal health products, enforcing proper use according to labeling and imposing penalties for improper use. USDA shares a consumer-facing message about how they ensure safe food with routine surveillance of meat and milk.

“We’re bringing insights from our team of veterinarians who work daily with producers and veterinarians,” Dr. Hilbig said. “We spend a lot of time and effort training on the appropriate use of antibiotics because proper use according to the product label is key to helping avoid violative residues and controlling the spread of antibiotic resistance. We’re also helping monitor antimicrobial resistance so the industry can be confident the products they are using are effective.”

So, what does a One Health collaborative approach mean for your role as beef cattle producers and veterinarians in the new year and beyond? It means that you just need to keep doing everything you’re already doing right and, as experts in the industry, sharing about your efforts. 

“Regardless of roles, we’re all doing everything possible so you can focus on continuing to do what you do best every day — caring for cattle and keeping them healthy,” Dr. Hilbig said. “We all have the same goals. We want to keep people healthy. We all want our families to have the healthiest food.”

Source: Zoetis

In the cattle business as elsewhere, the old adage is true: Size matters.

The big boys of beef — those who can fill a tractor-trailer load of steers ready for market — get top dollar for their sale. The rest… well, they settle for less.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. For the past four decades, tucked away among the rolling pastures of clustered around Chester County, a group of South Carolina cattle producers has beaten the odds. Their secret? Cooperation.

“This year is the 40th consecutive year producers in the Tri-County Cattle Marketing Cooperative have sold truckload lots of quality feeder calves as a group effort to increase their profits,” said Clemson Extension agent Brian Beer in Lancaster County.

“We actually still have a farmer selling calves today who placed cattle on the first load in 1977,” Beer said. “When new cattle producers join now, they can see a long record of others who’ve built their business with this marketing approach.”

Most big cattle buyers seek out large cow-calf operators. However, roughly two-thirds of American cattle producers — and likely even more in the southeastern states where smaller farms are more prevalent — don’t have large enough herds to market calves in a truckload lot.

Pooling their cattle allows the members of the Tri-County Cattle Marketing Cooperative, which now reaches well beyond its original three counties, not only to fill full trailer loads at a time but also to supply beef cattle of uniform age, size and weight. That’s enticing to buyers and helps boost prices.

“Our producers are seeing prices an average of 10 to 12 cents per pound higher on these load lots than they would see if they sold their calves themselves,” Beer said. “On a 700-pound calf, that’s $70 to $80 a head. That’s a pretty good incentive for smaller operations to work together.”

The cooperative was born of necessity, the old-timers say. Beef markets can be finicky about breeds, and buyers in the 1970s were offering lower prices on some of cattle that performed best on South Carolina pastures.

“(Former county Extension agent) Robert Vaughn started it. He was getting good Santa Gertrudis bulls in here, but the markets didn’t like the breed much back then. So they needed a special way to sell it,” said Rusty Thompson, also a former county agent and now a cattleman himself.

“It wasn’t only a hassle to sell them but also a big financial responsibility, so they decided on an established marketing group to handle the financial end,” Thomson said.

“Robert Vaughn could see 40 years ago that truckload lots were going to be the future of the business,” said Allen Beer, a lifetime cattleman who joined the original co-op in 1977 and is Extension agent Brian Beer’s dad. “We were just looking for ways to increase the value of our herds. It lead not only to cooperative marketing, but cooperative purchasing. So by working together we’re able to make bulk purchases of supplies to save us money as well.

“For those in our area it has meant a significant increase in people’s income,” he said. “It wasn’t something you had to beat people over the head for to get them to sign up.”

The elder Beer partnered with another local cattleman so the two could put together a full trailer load of cattle with very similar traits.

“That’s what the market is looking for,” he said. “We have similar breeding programs. We buy similar bulls. We have similar management practices. Over time we’ve established a reputation with cattle buyers that we couldn’t have done without cooperative marketing.”

By 1989, the cooperative put together a retained ownership program that allows cattle producers to receive feedback on important carcass data — such as grade, rate of gain and marbling — that they can use to improve the quality of future calves.

Also in the ’80s, they began marketing “preconditioned” loads rather than just recently weaned calves. Preconditioning prepares calves to enter feedlots not only by weaning them from their mothers, but by introducing them to dry feeds and putting them through a health program of different vaccinations. The goal is to enhance the calves’ immune systems and minimizing stress when they are sold to feedlots.

“We sold for years green — straight off the cow — until preconditioning started in 1984,” Thomson recalled. “It’s more effort for the cattleman, that’s for sure. It’s much easier to get cattlemen to fill a load of freshly weaned calves than to manage preconditioning. But a uniform trailer load of preconditioned calves will bring you a premium.”

The idea caught on. When Thomson retired from Clemson Extension, he said, “the marketing co-op’s spreadsheet covered Brian Beer’s floor.” In 2017, the co-op’s 40th anniversary, 19 cattlemen were contributing to the effort. They hail not only from its original tri-county area, but from farms stretching from Plum Branch near the Georgia state line all the way up to North Carolina.

Cattle marketing cooperative - Thomson and Beer

It was the first year for local cattleman Paul Kicidis, who switched from raising horses to cattle in 1995. “Everybody said I’ll make more money in the co-op,” Kicidis said. “I figured I’d give it a shot.”

That’s been the story since the co-op began, Thomson said. “It really hasn’t changed much over the years,” he said. “Cattle producers have always had to adapt as the beef industry has changed. When they find something that works, they’ll stick with it.”

For Allen Beer, whatever the future of cattle marketing holds, he believes cooperation will remain the key.

“We have the kind of cooperative spirit where we can sit down and talk about our differences and work things out,” he said. “That’s helped us provide a very consistent and predictable level of quality that buyers like. Some of the same buyers come back to us year after year because they know what to expect.

“It makes us better able to handle changes, too,” Beer said. “I think production changes will probably be more of an issue than marketing changes in the future. When you look at the progress that’s been made in cattle production just in the last 15 to 20 years, it’s amazing. As a group, if we keep working together, we’ll be able to adapt.”

Sure, you’re used to hearing from animal rights activists online, in commercials set to sad music, in social media, and maybe on the occasional billboard. Perhaps a print ad with a celebrity here and there.

But in church?

Yes, says Kay Johnson Smith, president and CEO of Animal Agriculture Alliance, a nonprofit industry coalition formed to bridge livestock communication gaps. Smith says her organization noticed animal rights groups like the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals using religious language and blatantly working to infiltrate churches in the late 2000s. 

Why religion? Wes Jamison, associate professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University, has spent the better part of his career studying the animal rights movement and says activists in church makes more sense than you might think. Here’s why:

1. People of faith have sustained beliefs. “They don’t waver and change,” Jamison says.

2. People of faith give more to charities, and they give both time and money.

3. Animal cruelty issues appeal to a Christian’s sense of compassion. HSUS plays up that an animal has to die and sacrifice its life for us.

4. Animal rights groups offer an exchange: to make you feel less bad about the animal dying, you can give money to an organization that looks out for the interest of animals. “It makes you feel better about going out for a steak,” Jamison says.

To get a better sense of biblical doctrine, HSUS has even gone so far as to pay for a staff member to attend seminary, and then made her senior director of faith outreach. From HSUS’ website: “The faith outreach program of the Humane Society of the U.S. seeks to engage people and institutions of faith with animal protection issues, on the premise that religious values call upon us all to act in a kind and merciful way towards all creatures.”

Not surprisingly, PETA is more graphic in its descriptions: “As we learn from the life of Jesus, Christians are called to stand up for the marginalized and downtrodden. That means promoting a culture of respect for everyone, including the animals who are suffering right now on severely crowded factory farms, in burning hot transport trucks, and in blood-filled slaughterhouses.”

Think it can’t happen in your church? Think again, says Smith, who sat in her home church near Washington, D.C., on a recent stewardship Sunday, only to hear a lay pastor read a statement encouraging parishioners to participate in “Meatless Mondays.” Smith was taken aback — after all, she works in the business of getting ahead of statements like those. She and her husband sent a carefully composed letter to the pastor.

“I didn’t anticipate it in my church, but it happened,” Smith says, adding she wished she’d thought further ahead. “I wasn’t proactive enough. You can’t correct your pastor in church when it happens!”

Making inroads
The Animal Ag Alliance commissioned research by Jamison back in 2009, studying how the animal rights movement is using faith to advance its agenda across America — often in churches just like Smith’s. What they found was that many denominations had already accepted or adopted policies on animals. A sampling:

• “Eating can be an opportunity to thoughtfully live our beliefs about justice  — a vehicle for practicing our faith … good nutrition is stewardship of a gift God gave us — our bodies … choose healthier sources of proteins ... animal proteins such as beef or whole milk dairy products come with a heavy helping of saturated fats. Vegetable proteins come with plenty of fiber and vitamins. The meat industry does not always handle animals humanely.” — “Just Eating? Practicing our Faith at the Table,” Presbyterian Church USA, Page 12.

• “The Episcopal Church encourages its members to ensure that husbandry methods for captive and domestic animals would prohibit suffering in such conditions as puppy mills and factory farms.” — Episcopal Church, Support Ethical Care of Animals

• “Humans, and particularly North American agricultural practices, have lost or obliterated strains of corn and apples, reduced the varieties of cattle and sheep to a virtual handful, bred chickens that do not ever get to walk, and turkeys so large they cannot even stand, much less fly. Multinational agribusiness has sought to expand profits and control of agricultural practices by exporting such exploitative practices to peoples in the developing world. These practices have also threatened the diversity of the human community.” — The Social Community #3184: Guidelines for Developing Genetically Modified Organisms in The Book of Resolutions 336, United Methodist Church

Other groups and authority figures have weighed in, too, with Stephen Kaufman of the Christian Vegetarian Association saying, “We know that animal ag is inherently cruel.” Jeffrey Cohan of Jewish Veg has said that dominion does not give human beings permission to kill animals for food, while Lisa Levins of In Defense of Animals says the Interfaith Vegan Coalition helps people “widen their circles of compassion to include non-human animals.” Smith says that particular group provides religion-specific advocacy kits on its website to help bring those of faith into the animal rights movement. 

This op-ed on The Washington Post website even suggests Franklin Graham has gone vegan; no word on whether he stuck with it.

Jamison, however, says HSUS and others take scriptures out of context, misrepresent clear Bible teaching regarding the relationship of animals and people, and incorrectly reinterpret the place of people in creation.

“Putting religion in service to the agenda of the vegetarian/animal food ethic has penetrated the fabric of evangelicalism,” Jamison says. “This co-opting of religion, theology and Bible quoting in service to animal food morality is no longer restricted to some faddish cleric blessing pets in church and composing the associated litany. It has now acquired a semblance of intellectual and institutional endorsement among those presenting themselves as Bible-believing evangelicals.”

Smith says HSUS and its ilk have an ultimate goal: to eliminate animal agriculture, through undercover videos and by changing the mindset of the country. “Using religion is one of those ways,” she adds. 

What can you do?
Be aware of the issue locally and at higher levels in your denomination, says the Animal Ag Alliance’s Hannah Thompson-Weeman.

“Help us be the eyes and ears out there. We cannot be in every church on Sunday, and we can’t be on every council,” she says. Note the mention of related concepts during sermons or in church materials — meatless Mondays, factory farms or calls to eat less meat or meat with certain labels.

Watch for proposed resolutions at national denominational meetings. “If you’re on those committees, read the language and know what’s going on. Ask the people in your church who are on those committees,” Thompson-Weeman says.

It helps to be prepared, too, she says, adding that farmers who are interested in resources can contact her directly. Those resources can be shared with church leadership. She also recommends writing a letter to the editor of your local paper explaining your commitment to animal care and the environment, which establishes yourself as a resource regarding animal agriculture.

“Don’t just react — be proactive,” Thompson-Weeman says.

The rapid and uncontrolled population growth of feral swine in Texas and other affected states has been a severe problem for at least the last decade, damages caused by the wild animals reaching into the millions just in Texas.

Nationally, feral swine cause major damage to property, agriculture (crops and livestock), native species and ecosystems, and cultural and historic resources. This invasive species costs the United States an estimated $1.5 billion each year in damages and control costs.

In addition to these concerns, because of their very nature, feral swine, which wallow along river banks, lakes and ponds, are known to spread diseases to other types of wildlife, and domestic animals. Feral pigs are also becoming a problem in some suburban areas as they root up turf at homes, parks and golf courses. They also turn over and root through trash cans in suburban areas and pose a driving hazard when moving in large numbers near roadways and highways.

In recent years a major effort to control population numbers has helped, but wildlife and public health officials say more needs to be done. But with an estimated five million feral swine running free in the United States, controlling the problem appears to be greater than current efforts to manage their numbers.

Limited Control Options

Existing control methods include hunting and trapping the animals, but in spite of eliminating a considerable number of the animals, feral swine continue to spread into other states not previously known to be feeding or breeding grounds. Overall, 39 states have reported some level of problem with wild pigs.

Texas is home to more feral pigs than any other state — an estimated 50 percent to 75 percent of all feral swine in the nation. More effort to reduce their numbers has occurred in Texas than anywhere else, representing more traps, more hunts, and more research. Yet their numbers are growing, and so is the amount of damage they cause each year.

In 2017 Texas Commissioner of Agriculture Sid Miller unveiled a wide-reaching plan to deal with the feral hog problem, calling for what he termed a "hog-apocalypse" involving the distribution of a deadly poison bait. Miller initially approved the legal use of a commercial poison that contained warfarin, the same drug used to kill rats or prescribed by doctors, in smaller doses, to prevent blood clots. Once feral swine ingest the poison, they begin to bleed internally. But hunters and conservationists expressed concern, fearing other animals may be exposed to the toxin, possibly affecting any animal or human predator feeding on the meat of a poisoned pig.

Shortly after announcing its use, the manufacturer of the poison bait voluntarily removed the product from the market out of fear of lawsuits and other possible retribution.

Toxic Bait Evaluation

Now, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is evaluating another type of oral toxic bait for use with invasive feral swine. APHIS received an Experimental Use Permit (EUP) from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to conduct sodium nitrite toxic bait field trials on free-roaming feral swine in Texas and Alabama last November, and signed a final environmental assessment and issued a Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) associated with conducting field trials using the poison.

"Wildlife Services takes the selection and use of toxic baits for use in wildlife damage management very seriously. The final environmental assessments, FONSI and EUP, are the result of years of collaborative research by Wildlife Services and multiple private, state, federal and international partners," reports APHIS Wildlife Services (WS) Deputy Administrator Bill Clay. "With these in place, we can now begin field trials to help determine the effectiveness of the sodium nitrite toxic bait for removing feral swine sounders in natural settings, as well as any potential impacts to non-target wildlife."

Safeguards

 Clay says the EUP allows researchers to partner with landowners to identify and target three to nine feral swine sounders (herds) each in Texas and Alabama. He said bait delivery systems designed to prevent access by non-target wildlife will be filled with placebo bait, placed in the sounders’ territories and monitored with motion-activated cameras.

Following a period of acclimation to confirm feral swine use of the baiting areas, the placebo bait will be replaced with sodium nitrite toxic bait for two nights. As a research method, at least 30 feral swine and no more than 30 raccoons in each state’s study area are to be captured live and radio-collared prior to baiting in order to monitor their movements and exposure to the bait. Landowners within 300 meters of bait stations will be notified, and signs will be placed on bait stations and along roads leading into the study areas.

"Sodium nitrite (NaNO2) is a meat preservative commonly used to cure meats such as sausage and bacon. When eaten in high doses over a short period of time, it is toxic to feral swine. The mode of death is similar to carbon monoxide poisoning. Once enough sodium nitrite bait is eaten, the feral swine gets faint, is rendered unconscious, and quickly dies. In most cases, feral swine die within two and-a-half to three hours after eating a lethal dose," Clay said.

Researchers say many factors are considered when developing a toxic bait for feral swine. Not only must it be effective and humane in eliminating feral swine, but also must be low risk for those handling it, the environment, and wildlife. Other wildlife, such as raccoons, bears and deer, may be attracted to the sodium nitrite toxic bait, but to prevent non-target species from accessing it, researchers will use delivery systems and baiting strategies designed to target feral swine. Trials will not be conducted in areas with known black bear populations.

The trials are scheduled to begin in both Alabama and Texas as early as February.

"Although trapping, aerial operations, and recreational hunting of feral swine have effectively reduced damage in some areas, studies show that at least 70 percent of feral swine must be removed each year in order to prevent population growth," Clay said. "Should the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approve the toxic bait for use with feral swine, it could become another tool in the toolbox for integrated feral swine damage management."

Skeptics

 While farmers welcome technology that helps to control the damaging swine in their fields, there are skeptics.

Roland Ortiz, a commercial trapper and hunter in the San Antonio area, says wild hogs are "very intelligent creatures," and they are prolific breeders. Ortiz stays busy hunting and trapping hogs on farms, ranches and lately in subdivisions that contract his services.

"We are slowly pushing back into more sparsely populated areas, but they keep coming back. Managing them is a full time job, "Ortiz said.

While he agrees a toxic bait would help to control wild swine populations, he doubts anything will ever solve the problem.

"We have rat poison, but there's still lots of rats," Ortiz notes.

The application period for the next America’s Pig Farmer of the Year is open through March 11. The National Pork Board award recognizes a U.S. pork producer who demonstrates excellence in raising pigs using the We Care ethical principles and in sharing his or her story with the public.

“This program creates a national platform to connect pig farming with today’s consumers,” said National Pork Board President, Terry O’Neel, Friend, Nebraska. “Identifying a pig farmer who can share the story of pork production allows all pig farmers to continue to raise pigs and underscore their important role in feeding the world.”

A panel of third-party judges will again help to determine the final award recipient, with the winner announced during national pork month. The public can also play a role in selecting the 2018 winner through viewing short clips of the finalists on their farms at http://www.americaspigfarmer.com/, and voting for their favorite through the Pork Checkoff’s social media outlets. 

“This award embodies the We Care ethical principles pig farmers demonstrate every day,” O’Neel said. “I encourage those who enjoy sharing their pig farming story to apply today. The past winners have traveled throughout the country, meeting with consumers, sharing what it means to be a pig farmer and how they personally produce healthy, wholesome food.”

Anyone can nominate a U.S. pork producer who is at least 30 years old as of Jan. 1, 2018, at http://www.americaspigfarmer.com/nominate. Complete rules of the award program are on the site as well, along with answers to frequently asked questions. 

Source: National Pork Board

An Iowan who invented a device to save newborn pigs from being crushed by their mothers was recently named Entrepreneur of the Year by the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Matthew Rooda and partner Abraham Espinoza won Farm Bureau’s Rural Entrepreneurship Challenge for their startup business, SwineTech Inc., which makes the device that saves piglets.

It’s the third time in four years an Iowa entrepreneur has won the contest. The SwineTech team, led by Rooda and Espinoza, beat three other finalists from across the nation. Their startup business took home a total of $30,000 in prize money, including $15,000 from sponsor John Deere. Over 450 applicants entered the contest.

SwineTech uses technology to monitor sows to reduce piglet mortalities in farrowing facilities. The Iowa Farm Bureau mentored the entrepreneurs, who presented their business model in front of a live audience and judges on stage in the IDEAg Trade Show at the recent AFBF convention.

Piglets saved by sound
SwineTech, based in Cedar Rapids, designed the device that listens for the distressed squeals of piglets in danger of getting squished. Then it delivers a vibration to get the mother sow moving. In recent months, SwineTech has worked on improving and redesigning the technology.

When the system was first invented, the sow wore a belt. Now, it’s a patch applied to the sow’s skin. And rather than shocking the sow immediately, it starts with a vibration. If that doesn’t move the sow, it delivers a mild shock to get her to stand up.

“While the strength of the shock has been decreased, it still works,” Rooda says. It used to be comparable to a dog’s shock collar; the patch now delivers a buzz about two-fifths of that strength.

SwineTech has raised about $1.3 million from investors and an additional $300,000 in grants. It will open another round of funding later this year. The technology recently finished university tests and is being used by three corporate hog farms, including two of the nation’s biggest pork producers.

SwineTech had $100,000 in sales last fall. For now, Rooda plans to stick with current customers as the company perfects the technology before moving to a wider rollout. “We’re still in the beta phase, testing and tweaking,” he adds.

SwineTech started working on this device in summer 2015, so it’s just been over a year and a half in development. “We plan to commercialize the product this fall,” Rooda says. “The next big step is manufacturing. We’re working with a firm in Cedar Rapids. We want to get everything ready so when we launch, we have solid information and data for producers, to help them make the decision to get onboard with our technology.”

‘Fitbit for pigs’
In addition to saving pigs from being crushed, “we found we can use the technology to do health tracking and become the Fitbit for pigs,” Rooda says. “We can let farmers know if their sows are healthy or not, and give farmers helpful insight to better manage their herd.”

Another idea SwineTech wants to develop with this technology is to provide farmers with heat-mapping, Rooda says, “so they can see exactly where the cold spots and inefficiencies are within their facilities. We also want to get better documentation with our Fitbit health tracking technology.”

That digital documentation would provide additional benefits for livestock farmers, he notes. “For example, we want farmers to be able to better document the use of antibiotics in livestock. Consumers are concerned about how their food is being produced. We can help farmers with that, so they don’t have to worry about losing a market if for some reason there is a question about antibiotic use.”

Source: AFBF, SwineTech

International feed tonnage has exceeded 1 billion metric tons for the second consecutive year, according to the Alltech Global Feed Survey.

A total of 1.07 billion metric tons of feed was produced in 2017, a 2.57% increase over the previous year. The feed industry, valued at $430 billion, has seen 13% growth over the past five years, equating to an average of 2.49% per annum. This substantial growth is supported by the higher reported consumption of meat, milk and eggs.

The seventh edition of the annual survey is the most comprehensive ever, now covering 144 countries and more than 30,000 feed mills. The results show that China and the U.S. remain the top two countries, producing one-third of all animal feed, and that predominant growth came from the pig, broiler and dairy feed sectors as well as the European and Asia-Pacific regions. 

“Now in its seventh year of analysis, the Alltech Global Feed Survey continues to serve as a valuable report on the state of the global feed industry,” said Aidan Connolly, chief innovation officer and vice president of corporate accounts at Alltech. “In addition to its insights into the feed industry, it serves as a barometer for agriculture as a whole and oftentimes demonstrates the economic strength of the countries included in the survey.”

The Alltech Global Feed Survey assesses compound feed production and prices through information collected by Alltech’s global sales team and in partnership with local feed associations in the last quarter of 2017. It is intended to serve as an information resource for policymakers, decision-makers and industry stakeholders. 

Here’s a look at some findings from the report. 

The top seven feed-producing countries in 2017 contain 54% of the world’s feed mills and account for 53% of total production.

They are, in order of production output importance:

1. China.
2. United States.
3. Brazil.
4. Russia.
5. Mexico.
6. India.
7. Spain. 

Regional results

• North America produces a third of the beef feed, five times that of the next-largest producer. The U.S. and Canada are two of the top horse feed producing countries. Feed prices in North America are lower than when compared to other regions.
• Latin America: Brazil remained the leader in feed production for the region and third overall globally. Brazil, Mexico and Argentina account for almost 75% of regional feed production. Mexico leads the region in beef and layer feed production. Latin America as a region has had the third-highest growth rate over five years, seen primarily in aqua, horses and pets. 
• Europe: Tied with Asia-Pacific for the fastest-growing regions, Europe saw 3% feed tonnage growth, resulting from increases in pig, boiler and aqua feed production. The region was led by Russia with 37.6 million tons produced in 2017, moving up in the country rankings from number seven to number four. Russia increased its estimated pig feed, including more private production. Russian broiler feed production also increased by 3%, while Ukraine, Romania, the U.K. and Belgium also reported higher numbers, supporting growth in the European region. Europe is the top pet food producing region. 
• The Asia-Pacific region accounts for more than 35% of the world’s feed tonnage. China remained the top feed-producing country in the world with 186.86 million metric tons, a slight decline in overall feed production compared to last year. Asia-Pacific increased by 3% over the 2017 survey results, primarily due to increases in pig and pet food production. Increased production for Asia-Pacific also came from India with 7% and Thailand with 8% growth. Vietnam grew 4% over the past year and is the second-highest producer of pig and aqua feed in the Asia-Pacific region. Seventy percent of all aqua feed and 44% of all layer feed is produced in Asia-Pacific countries.
• Africa remains the fastest growing region in the world for dairy and broiler feeds.  With a regional average growth rate of nearly 30% over the last five years, it did not show growth in 2017. Pig, dairy, layer and boiler feed production increased, while decreases occurred in beef and aquaculture. Also, on average, Africa is the most expensive region for feeding pigs, layers and broilers. Smaller countries such as Botswana and Mozambique led the growth for pig, dairy, layer and broiler feeds. Beef feed production decreases were reflected in countries such as Zambia and Morocco. While many African nations showed a small increase in aquaculture feed production, the region as a whole was down primarily because of lower reported feed production in Egypt, which has now been surpassed by Nigeria.

Species results

• In the poultry industry, broiler feed production increased across all regions, with the largest growth found in Africa with 10% and Europe with 7%. Romania, Russia and Ukraine all reported steady growth, contributing to Europe’s overall production, while Africa’s growth came primarily from Egypt, Uganda and Mozambique.
• Global leaders in pork production, China and Russia, led the way in pig feed production in 2017. Many smaller African countries, particularly Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Uganda and Namibia, also showed increases. 
• Global dairy feed production saw growth across all regions. Europe, a global leader in dairy production, grew on average by approximately 2%. Africa as a region saw the largest dairy feed production increase by 10%, with countries such as South Africa, Morocco and Zimbabwe showing significant increases from their reported 2017 dairy feed production.
• Beef feed production reported an overall global decline of approximately 1%, primarily in regions such as Latin America, Africa and Europe. This global downward trend has generally been felt by the industry for some time as more consumers turn to “white” meats such as chicken, pork and fish.
• Overall aquaculture feeds showed a slight increase, particularly in the European and Asia-Pacific regions. China reported a decline of 5% this year and in 2016, which could be linked to government controls on feeding practices and food safety, such as the administration of antibiotics. Brazil, Chile and Peru led the increase in production in Latin America, as did Iran in the Middle East. Carp leads the production of aquaculture feed, followed by shrimp/prawn and tilapia. Catfish, salmon and trout also ranked on the species feed indicator, though to lesser degrees.
• The pet food sector had a strong year across all regions. Asia-Pacific’s pet food production increased by 13%, with China, Thailand and Taiwan as the primary contributors to the increase. Europe increased by 17% with Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania, Poland and Hungary producing over 580,000 metric tons of additional pet food. Uruguay, Ecuador, El Salvador, Chile and Argentina represent almost all of the pet food production growth in Latin America, combining for 725,000 more tons.

Source: Alltech

Compiled by Cheryl Day
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today issued a ruling on a suit challenging the sale of the Pork, The Other White Meat trademarks. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the review by Stout Risius Ross, financial advisory firm, did not adequately analyze the value of the trademarks and orders the annual payment from the National Pork Board to the National Pork Producers Council to cease.

The National Pork Producers Council sold the trademarks to the National Pork Board in 2006.

In 2012, Humane Society of United States filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court claiming the contract should have never been approved and the appraisal was not accurate. HSUS and other plaintiffs — which included Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, an activist group, and a lone Iowa resident who is a member of this group — claimed that the trademarks were sold for an inflated price.

NPPC sold the assets, widely regarded as one of the most recognizable marketing brand assets in history, for $35 million. A USDA-conducted study later valued the trademarks at between $113 million and $132 million.

The court’s decision followed a motion last January to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the USDA, which authorized the transaction as part of its oversight responsibilities under the 1985 Pork Act. The Pork Act set up the Pork Checkoff program and established the National Pork Board to administer it. The USDA’s motion argued that the lawsuit, filed by the HSUS and two other parties, lacked merit, was barred by a six-year statute of limitations, that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing to file the lawsuit or show that they were harmed by the sale of the trademarks and that the agency’s evaluation of the sale of the trademarks showed they provided significant value to the pork industry.

In a press statement, Ken Maschhoff, an Illinois pork producer and president of the NPPC, states “We are conducting a thorough review of the decision and evaluating our options. We are disappointed that the court partially denied the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s motion to dismiss this frivolous lawsuit, one that was never based on a legitimate legal challenge to a federally approved transaction but instead was brought by an anti-meat activist group intent on eliminating meat consumption and harming a vast U.S. industry that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans and feeds billions of people at home and abroad.”

Source: National Pork Producers Council

Fifth generation California rancher Kevin Kester was sworn in last week as the new president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) at their annual convention in Phoenix, and he wasted little time echoing the 2018 priorities set by the group during the meeting.

At the top of list for the group is the new farm bill and also trade and market access. Kester said these issues will be major areas for lobbying efforts in Washington in 2018.

A document outlining other policy priorities for the new year was released following the convention, designating three other important areas of concern for the association. They include regulatory reform, antimicrobial issues, and fake meat, the latter of which represents the first time NCBA has officially acknowledged a concern with the growing “fake meat” movement. According to NCBA sources, fake meat includes cultured meat grown from animal cells and vegetable-based protein products that claim to look and taste like beef.

While NCBA officials report they are not concerned with the process used in the manufacture of meat substitutes, they do question misleading names and labels associated with many of those products. The policy priority concerning such products is that rules should be adopted to limit or prevent labels from using terms like beef, hamburger and steak to describe alternative meat products.

Critical Issues

Concerning antimicrobial use, Kester says the Association's aim is to secure a clean Animal Drug User Fee Act (ADUFA) reauthorization. ADUFA gives FDA the authority to collect user fees from the animal health industry and has enabled FDA to speed up the application review process for pioneer and generic new animal drugs without compromising the quality of the agency’s review. NCBA and other meat production groups want assurance that the industry has the opportunity for constructive input into the process of developing, managing and reporting use. 

Other priorities expressed at the NCBA convention included farm bill funding specifically related to funding a comprehensive foot and mouth disease vaccine bank. Of equal concern are issues including "disruptive policies" like mandatory COOL (country of origin) labeling, and the continuation of protective programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQUIP, that provides assistance with environmental resources such as protecting soil, water and air quality.

Another issue that merits attention is related to finding a solution to new mandates for electronic logging devices (ELD). Truckers hauling livestock received a 90-day waiver from the Electronic Logging Device, or ELD use mandate, but NCBA and the industry-at-large is hoping for a longer-term solution.

The rule was set to go into effect as early as 2016, but because of an outcry from the transportation industry, the U.S. Department of Transportation delayed the regulation. Trucking fleets had until December 2017 to implement certified ELDs to record hours of operation, but fleets that were already equipped with electronic logging technology (AOBRDs) before last December now have until December 2019 to ensure compliance with the published specifications.

Also, an NCBA priority this year is the continued effort to promote federal action to replace the Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS).

Kester says cattle producers experienced some success last year related to market access and regulatory reform, but their many efforts in 2018 will be broader and more intense.

"We’re going to continue to ensure fair access to foreign markets, fight against unnecessary regulation, make sure the farm bill addresses our needs, and guarantee that consumers have the ability to purchase a safe, healthy, accurately labeled protein source," he said following the convention.

 Kester and family raise cattle and wine grapes on their 22,000 acre ranch near Parkfield, California. He formerly served as the president of the San Luis Obispo County Cattlemen's Association and as President of the California Cattlemen's Association.  Kester is also a member of the California Association of Winegrape Growers and the Paso Robles Wine Country Alliance.

by Megan Durisin

As if Americans didn’t have enough chicken on the menu already, production of the nation’s most-popular meat is headed for the biggest growth spurt in more than a decade.

Companies including Tyson Foods Inc. and Sanderson Farms Inc. are leading an industry expansion with new processing plants from Tennessee to Texas, fueled by years of profit gains from cheap feed grain and record demand. Even retailer Costco Wholesale Corp. is getting into the act, building its first-ever poultry plant in Nebraska.

While U.S. consumers are eating more chicken nuggets, boneless breasts and wings than ever, Sanderson estimates the industry’s production will increase 3% annually from 2019 through 2021. That’s the most since a three-year expansion ended in 2005, creating a possible “dogfight” for market share and jeopardizing prices that last year were 10% higher than in 2016.

“I don’t see this construction causing prices to crash, but it certainly is going to take away from any upside,” said Tom Elam, president of Indiana poultry consultant FarmEcon.

The industry has been riding a profit boom as low feed costs allowed farmers to raise bigger birds and more of them. Americans have been eating more chicken than any other meat for two decades, but demand has taken off in recent years. Per-capita consumption will jump to a record 92.4 pounds (42 kilograms) this year, up 15% since 2012, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show.

Tyson, which also produces beef and pork, had record earnings in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. On Thursday, the Springdale, Arkansas-based company probably will report that net income for the three months through the end of December was $541 million, or $1.50 a share, according to the average of seven analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Analysts predict quarterly earnings gains later this month for Greeley, Colorado-based Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. and Laurel, Mississippi-based Sanderson Farms. The two companies, along with Tyson, control almost half of domestic supply.

Poultry production has been profitable since 2011, when surging corn and soybean prices led to losses that forced companies to cut back operations. Since then, output has continued to increase to almost 19 million metric tons this year, mostly by raising bigger birds, USDA data show.

Most of the processing expansions will be completed beginning next year. Sanderson, which has added seven plants since 1993 and has been more aggressive about adding capacity, recently broke ground in eastern Texas. Tyson, the biggest producer, plans to build its first new chicken plant in two decades, opening in 2019 in western Tennessee. Costco says its $300 million plant in Nebraska will produce almost 100 million chickens a year, supplying about a quarter of what its stores need and reducing costs by 10 cents to 35 cents a bird.

The pace of planned expansions has some analysts concerned. Shares for Tyson, Pilgrim’s and Sanderson have fallen since mid-December. Frozen chicken supplies are at a 12-year seasonal high, and the USDA forecasts broiler prices to slip about 3.2% in 2018 to average 90.5 cents a pound. The agency on Wednesday also forecast domestic farm income will fall to a 12-year low as prices drop and costs increase. 

“There may be more expansion than we had initially thought,” Heather Jones, an analyst at Vertical Group, said in a Feb. 5 report. In a separate interview, Jones said that while the production increases will be absorbed by the market, “margins will be compressed."

The outlook also could be tripped up by lawsuits filed by chicken buyers accusing producers of illegally conspiring to raise prices and any disruption in trade deals that have helped fuel U.S. exports.

Changing Tastes

Still, some older plants may be closed as more-efficient facilities are built, and not all the new capacity may get used if market conditions deteriorate, said Christine McCracken, an animal-protein analyst at Rabobank.

Some producers have no choice but to add capacity if they hope to meet growing demand, because efforts to make birds bigger may erode the texture and appeal of the meat. Others need new facilities to address the changing tastes of consumers. 

Bell & Evans, an organic and specialty chicken company in Pennsylvania, is constructing a facility that will process 2.6 million chickens a week when it opens in 2020. The company supplies retailers including Whole Foods Market Inc. and Amazon.com Inc.

“I’ve got to expand,” owner Scott Sechler said. “We rarely change prices, and when we do, it only goes up.” 

--With assistance from Kevin Varley.

To contact the reporter on this story: Megan Durisin in Chicago at mdurisin1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Simon Casey at scasey4@bloomberg.net

Steve Stroth, Millie Munshi

© 2018 Bloomberg L.P

Pork, sweet potatoes and tobacco are key North Carolina agricultural commodities, and the export market is vital for the success of all three.

At this year’s Ag Development Forum held during the Southern Farm Show in Raleigh, representatives of the three commodities outlined challenges each faces in the export market. The industry representatives all agreed that trade agreements such as NAFTA are vital.

“A trade war would be cataclysmic,” said Andy Curliss, CEO of the North Carolina Pork Council. “We support modernizing our trade agreements, but we do not want anyone to do harm to us or the rest of agriculture. Our trading relationships are well established. We are optimistic about the future. While there is a lot of talk, we believe that we will get through.  We will modernize, and it will set the stage for continued opportunity.”

Both NAFTA and the Korean trade agreements are vital to the U.S. pork industry. Curliss said Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Canada and China are U.S. pork’s main export markets. He said NAFTA is important because Mexico is a significant trading partner, particularly for hams.

“Mexico loves hams. We don’t take a position on walls, but if there is a wall between the U.S.  and Mexico, we’re going to cut a hole the size of a ham in that wall,” he said.

For tobacco, there is no shortage of negativity in both the U.S. and abroad, said Mike Ligon, vice president of corporate affairs for Universal Corporation. “The challenge: the industry has a bull’s eye on its back,” he said.

Ligon said the negativity once focused on health and marketing, but it has now moved into the social area. Such issues as child labor and worker rights are a real challenge for tobacco farmers. Ligon said U.S. tobacco farmers are doing a good job embracing these challenges which helps them in the export market.

“A lot of the time we think the Food and Drug Administration is a pain in our side. In our view the FDA provides us an opportunity that the World Health Organization does not provide. We have an opportunity to voice our opinion with them. With the World Health Organization, they don’t want us in the same country much less the same room,” Ligon said.

For U.S. tobacco exports, the World Health Organization still presents the greatest challenge, he explained.

For sweet potatoes, loss of market share is a challenge.

“It’s not because we can’t supply because we have the supply in North Carolina to be able to maintain our share. Forty percent of our product is exported so we must maintain that. The challenge that we have is technology in the hands of competitor countries. We must stay on top of our advancement in technology,” said Kelly McIver, executive director of the North Carolina Sweet Potato Commission.

Bill Graban, CEO of Prime Lumber Company in Thomasville, N.C., was also on the program and said the long term outlook for hardwood lumber in the United States is optimistic because the millennial generation is just beginning to enter into the market and their buying peak won’t come until 2040. A growing middle class in China also helps the demand for U.S hardwood exports, he said.

The Kentucky cattle and calf inventory for Jan. 1 was estimated at 2.16 million head. Total inventory was down 10,000 head from last year.

“The cattle industry is one of the most important sectors of Kentucky’s agriculture,” said David Knopf, director of the NASS Eastern Mountain Regional Office in Kentucky. “Kentucky ranks 14th in the United States in total cattle, including calves inventory, and eighth in beef cow inventory. In 2016 gross receipts from the production of cattle totaled $734 million, ranking it fifth among all commodities. Despite a slight retreat in total inventory, today’s report shows the large breeding herd will continue to produce sizeable calf crops. Heifers held for beef cow replacement dropped slightly to the lowest level in three years, but inventory is not showing a longer-term trend.”

Cows and heifers that have calved were estimated at 1.09 million head, up 10,000 head from the 1.08 million for 2018. Beef cow inventory was estimated at 1.03 million head and milk cows were estimated at 57,000 head. “While milk cow inventory has declined every year for the last 16 years, this year’s numbers held steady from 2017,” Knopf said.

Heifers 500 lbs. and over were estimated at 305,000 head, unchanged from last year's estimate. Beef replacement heifers totaled 145,000 head, down 5,000 from January 2017. Dairy heifers, at 45,000 head, were up 5,000 from 2017. Other heifers, at 115,000 head, were unchanged from the previous year. Steers 500 pounds and over numbered 195,000 head, down 20,000 from 2017. Bulls 500 pounds and over were unchanged head from a year ago and numbered 70,000 head. Calves less than 500 pounds were estimated at 500,000 head, unchanged from the 2017 estimate. Cattle on feed were estimated at 17,000 head, down 1,000 from the previous year.

The 2017 calf crop was estimated at 990,000 head, up 10,000 from the previous year’s estimate.

All cattle and calves in the United States, as of Jan. 1, 2018, totaled 94.4 million head, one percent above the 93.7 million head on Jan. 1, 2017. All cows and heifers that have calved, at 41.1 million head, were one percent above the 40.6 million head on Jan. 1, 2017. Beef cows, at 31.7 million head, were up two percent from a year ago. Milk cows, at 9.4 million head, were up one percent from the previous year.

All heifers 500 pounds and over, as of Jan. 1, 2018, totaled 20.2 million head, one percent above the 20.1 million head on Jan. 1, 2017. Beef replacement heifers, at 6.13 million head, were down four percent from a year ago. Milk replacement heifers, at 4.78 million head, were up one percent from the previous year. Other heifers, at 9.33 million head, were four percent above a year earlier.

Steers weighing 500 pounds and over, as of Jan. 1, 2018, totaled 16.4 million head, down slightly from Jan. 1, 2017. Bulls weighing 500 pounds and over, as of Jan. 1, 2018, totaled 2.25 million head, up slightly from Jan. 1, 2017. Calves under 500 pounds, as of Jan. 1, 2018, totaled 14.4 million head, up slightly from Jan. 1, 2017.

Cattle and calves on feed for the slaughter market in the United States for all feedlots totaled 14 million head on Jan. 1, 2018. The inventory is up seven percent from the Jan. 1, 2017 total of 13.1 million head. Cattle on feed, in feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head, accounted for 82 percent of the total cattle on feed on Jan. 1, 2018, up one percent from the previous year. The combined total of calves under 500 pounds and other heifers and steers over 500 pounds (outside of feedlots) is 26.1 million head, two percent below one year ago.

The 2017 calf crop in the United States was estimated at 35.8 million head, up two percent from last year’s calf crop. Calves born during the first half of 2017 were estimated at 26 million head, up two percent from the first half of 2016. Calves born during the second half of 2017 were estimated at 9.81 million head, 27 percent of the total 2017 calf crop.

The “One team. Gold dreams,” Dairy Calf and Heifer Association annual conference is set for April 10-12 in Milwaukee, Wis.

“We’re excited about our lineup for this year’s conference,” says Brent Caffee, DCHA conference committee co-chair and board of director. “Past attendee feedback and trending industry topics play an integral role in shaping our conference agenda.”

 Here are five reasons why you should attend: 

1. Learn about hot topics

Breakout sessions will cover a wide range of hot topics including calf immunity, group housing, ventilation systems, managing employees, feed center management, feedlot management and cattle transportation. Learn from the best in the business.

2. Experience farm and industry tours

Tours will focus on several areas of calf and heifer management. Attendees can attend one of two industry tours and will conclude the day by meeting on-farm for a calf management walk-through.

Industry tours (choose one):

• STgenetics: A leader in bovine genetics, you will get a glimpse into the research and technology that supports the growing industry. Hear from the experts on the latest in genomic testing and sexing technology.
• Milk Products: A behind-the-scenes tour of milk replacer manufacturing. Learn about the research and expertise that goes into calf milk replacer, and milk replacer for a variety of species.

Farm tour:

• Vir-Clar Farms: Exceptional calf care protocols and cleanliness are key to calf management success on this 2,000-cow dairy. Hear from the dairy’s calf manager, Katie Grinstead, about their approach to getting calves and heifers off to the best start possible. 

3. Get an outside perspective

Learn how to use influence and integrity to inspire and engage others. Regardless of your role on-farm or in the industry, great leadership is the driving force behind your growing business. Learn more about “The Power of Influence” through keynote speaker, Ty Bennett.

4. Network with your peers

Network with other calf and heifer raisers from across the U.S. and world. All aspects of calf and heifer raising will be represented at the conference. Take time to learn from your peers during meals, between sessions or during evening social events. 

5. Enjoy a new location

This year’s new conference location in Milwaukee, Wis. makes for easy travel arrangements. All conference activities will be held at the Potawatomi Hotel and Casino, except the industry and farm tours.

“We hope you can join us at this year’s conference and learn how to take your calf and heifer program to the next step on the podium,” says Caffee.

Last year’s conference drew more than 600 dairy calf and heifer raisers, dairy farmers and allied industry professionals from 30 states and 10 countries, representing more than 2 million cattle.

ARPAS Credits

The conference has been pre-approved by the American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists for up to 11 continuing education units. Participants should request credits for this event at arpas.org. 

Make plans to attend

To register and for a full conference schedule with session descriptions, visit calfandheifer.org.

Source: Dairy Calf and Heifer Association