Taken from Calf News - March 2007 -
The Website for Cattle Feeders
Betty Jo Gigot, Editor and Publisher
A Tremendously Exciting Time in Agriculture Print Story
Bill Rhea -Rhea Cattle Company, Arlington, Nebraska
Correctly anticipating what 2007 will bring is about as easy as anticipating Nebraska weather. However, the stage has been set by our previous year. We are facing a tremendously exciting time in agriculture. Ethanol plants have the potential to change cattle feeding at its core; in Nebraska, Initiative 300 may open doors to new methods of farm ownership (pending Supreme Court ruling); branded meats are flooding consumer shelves; political positioning in our global market directly involves the export of our beef; and at home, immigration issues impact our workforces.
Ethanol’s influence
The emergence of the ethanol plant boom will likely spur the biggest change we’ll see in our lifetime in rural America. In Nebraska alone 11 plants are currently operating; that number is set to grow quickly to 34. The placement of these plants will likely initiate a tremendous economic revival as those communities increase housing, city services and infrastructure.
The complexities of ethanol’s impact on cattle feeding will likely change the way we go about our business, from cow-calf to finishing. Ethanol’s byproducts could become the primary feed ingredient because corn will be too valuable to feed. Wet distiller’s grains with stalks may comprise rations in the new ethanol era of cattle feeding. We may add a level of complexity as we move from freely available and easily storable corn to a more sensitive ingredient. Corn storage is easy, on site, and offers consistency of supply. Cattle feeders could be at the mercy of the highs and lows of ethanol plant’s production, which is affected by holidays, breaks in production and the like. In addition, ethanol byproducts are more tenuous, with a limited shelf life.
How do we anticipate and provide for these events? Contracts for ethanol byproducts will most likely dictate a consistent amount over the course of time. This will mean that feedlot numbers will need to be more stable throughout the year, thus impacting cow-calf cycles. The use of “hoop” buildings and roughage bedding could assist northern operations to accommodate year-round feeding, while diminishing the environmental and weather impact.
Branded beef
Name branding has become vogue in our industry and perhaps is a necessity to maximize the significance of a superior product. It still has to mean something. The poultry industry has been branded for some time but often consumers feel that there is no defining difference among those brands. When not supplied with information about what the brand guarantees and implies, consumers choose based on price. In a high priced beef market, it is unclear if people will pay for higher prices of branded beef.
If we produce high quality meat, we need to cultivate a consumer culture to pay for it. Consumers want to embrace something of value, something with an identity. Having a brand name may be required to play ball in the market, but a brand itself is not enough anymore.
Political positioning
Corporate farming laws in Nebraska could have an effect on Iowa and South Dakota. Pending ruling, Nebraska’s law may open the doors for out-of-state investors in the cattle industry, thus changing the face of ownership. We will know if it will be heard by the Supreme Court by this spring. Alternatively, it may go in front of a full panel of the 8 th Circuit Court instead of a three-judge panel.
In the world market today, agriculture is a political toy rather than a means of feeding people. South Korea and Japan have agreed to our beef exports, stipulating a zero-tolerance policy on bone fragments. This may prove impossible but these are the hoops we will have to jump through. With South Korea, beef exports could become a bargaining chip while our peace keepers continue to serve there. Russian trade was not as much about BSE as it was a political and governmental issue, but issues like this affect us at the feedlot as producers.
Politically, we had better get our act together because we’ve got competition, especially from the Brazilians once they resolve their infrastructure issues. They’ve got the climate, the land and the grain production to create a value-added product. European demand is on the rise but it is doubtful the EU will tolerate hormone-treated beef. We need to press our case forward, but eventually may need to produce a product they want. Ultimately we need the 10-percent market share that our exports provide to take the pressure off our own market. Mexico is back on board; now hopefully we’ll get the others.
Immigration
Our national policy on immigration is backwards. We have defined programs to provide uncomplicated immigration for highly skilled jobs while there is no program for unskilled workers. As a nation, we cannot provide our own unskilled workers to drive our economy. Legislation could be implemented that could consider timely accessibility to an adequate labor force while keeping in mind the safety of America. What we need is unskilled workers we can assimilate into our society and teach agriculture skills. We need to figure out how we can make this happen.
Attracting a new generationThe biggest problem that lies in front of us is attracting a new generation to agriculture. While the aforementioned economic revival could have an impact on agriculture, it may entice young people to remain and return to agriculture
1 comment:
I think Bill is right in most of his comments, but he leaves out the important issue of animal health/food safety. We will continue to see pressure from various groups over the use of antibiotics in raising healthy animals. Any management strategies that can be used to reduce such dependence will become increasingly important. A solid bio-security program is critical to rasing healthy beef. We hear about this most from those who fear terrorist attacks on our agricultural infrastructure. However, it's greatest importance is in restricting exposure of our herds to disease that impairs their health and performance. The articles that you posted below regarding BVD-PI testing are referring to a small piece of that puzzle. By removing the PI cattle from the herd, producers are able to greatly reduce exposure of the remaining animals to the BVD pathogen which is the most common cause of Bovine Respiratory Disease in cattle herds. By reducing this exposure, their antibiotics work better with fewer uses because most secondary infections are bacterial against which the antibiotics can be effective. If the producer is fighting a pervasive viral infection, antibiotics are virtually useless and the incidence of disease re-occurrence is high -- thus, a high rate of re-treatment. The greater the number of treatments, the greater the risk of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains developing.
Post a Comment