Despite all you hear about over-grazing of western lands by cattle and sheep, and the environmentalist outcry for letting the public lands lay unused, except for hikers and hunters, the lands are resilient and the abundant moisture in most areas make 2008 a prime year.
Excitement is in the air from ranchers across the west, as record snowfall and rains have the grass greening up early, with prospects to last well into summer, even if summer moisture is sparse. You can't be a rancher without being an eternal optimist, so of course, excellent summer rains will sustain the spring and winter's green.
This time of year, as graziers attend auctions at livestock markets and on private ranches to buy cattle to turn out on the range, they are spurred on by the excellent grazing prospects. Feeder cattle prices, while down some from recent years, are still at profitable levels and well above what could be expected, given what's happened with fed cattle, high input costs such as grain, fuel and the credit crisis.
Green grass is what sustains cattle on the range, and the prospect of it is what is sustaining the current feeder cattle market.
With a few days of spring-like weather on this leap-day, before the heavy snows of March come down on us, we are getting just a taste of what is yet before us.
What an inspiring time for those with ranching in their blood.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Perspective needed in USDA lawsuit
The mass media, be it radio, TV or print, do not know a cow from a bull, when it comes to agriculture. The least little food recall, livestock sickness or criticism from vegetarians and animal rights activists, leads them to full panic mode--that plague, death and destruction are right around the corner.
So it is as the ultra-radical animal rights group Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over its downer cow rule. This is the rule alleged to be broken with the video of cows being pushed into the kill line at the Hallmark packing plant in Chino, California with forklifts. (Read below: the whole thing may have been staged).
Two things to keep in mind: HSUS is not a mainstream animal protection group--that's the American Humane Society. HSUS piggybacks on their name, trying to sound reasonable. They are not. Secondly, any citizen can go to any court of law and file a lawsuit. Its their constitutional right--it may not have merit and be quickly dismissed, but anyone can file.
The mass media runs front page headlines on the filing of the suit, and page 27, single paragraph stories on the dismissal. This is the likely outcome of the HSUS suit.
There is no health risk from the Hallmark ground beef recall--even USDA admits they cannot prove that. All they have is what is likely a fake video, shot for effect by vegetarians and animal rights radicals.
Keep calm, and do as I do--relax and enjoy a big steak.
So it is as the ultra-radical animal rights group Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over its downer cow rule. This is the rule alleged to be broken with the video of cows being pushed into the kill line at the Hallmark packing plant in Chino, California with forklifts. (Read below: the whole thing may have been staged).
Two things to keep in mind: HSUS is not a mainstream animal protection group--that's the American Humane Society. HSUS piggybacks on their name, trying to sound reasonable. They are not. Secondly, any citizen can go to any court of law and file a lawsuit. Its their constitutional right--it may not have merit and be quickly dismissed, but anyone can file.
The mass media runs front page headlines on the filing of the suit, and page 27, single paragraph stories on the dismissal. This is the likely outcome of the HSUS suit.
There is no health risk from the Hallmark ground beef recall--even USDA admits they cannot prove that. All they have is what is likely a fake video, shot for effect by vegetarians and animal rights radicals.
Keep calm, and do as I do--relax and enjoy a big steak.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The ethanol-from-corn farce
Huge economic dislocations in the food industry, and particularly in livestock production, have come from the fiction that America's energy crisis could be solved--or even be improved--by making ethanol from corn to replace gasoline.
Ethanol from corn is a net energy loser, as it takes more energy to raise and process the corn for ethanol, than the resulting ethanol returns to the gas tank. Now comes word that ethanol from corn produces even worse air pollution from cars than gasoline does. The only reason ethanol from corn is profitable is massive federal subsidies, handed out by politicians seeking the farm vote.
This sordid tale is bad enough by itself, but doesn't even begin to describe the damage done to livestock feed prices, livestock producer profit margins, and the cost of food at the supermarket. All because corn has been diverted from its highest and best use--feeding cattle, pigs and chickens--to make ethanol. Even the sop thrown to the livestock industry, the leftovers from ethanol production called brewer's mash-- when fed to cattle, appears to cause greater E. coli contamination in raw meat, in addition to being a less efficient and nutritious animal feed than the corn itself.
Ethanol can be a net energy producer, if made from sugar cane or switchgrass, but takes more energy, water and fertilizer made from petroleum, to grow the corn, than it returns in fuel.
It's time for Congress to cut out the subsidies for this farce, and return economic sense to both agriculture and energy production.
Ethanol from corn is a net energy loser, as it takes more energy to raise and process the corn for ethanol, than the resulting ethanol returns to the gas tank. Now comes word that ethanol from corn produces even worse air pollution from cars than gasoline does. The only reason ethanol from corn is profitable is massive federal subsidies, handed out by politicians seeking the farm vote.
This sordid tale is bad enough by itself, but doesn't even begin to describe the damage done to livestock feed prices, livestock producer profit margins, and the cost of food at the supermarket. All because corn has been diverted from its highest and best use--feeding cattle, pigs and chickens--to make ethanol. Even the sop thrown to the livestock industry, the leftovers from ethanol production called brewer's mash-- when fed to cattle, appears to cause greater E. coli contamination in raw meat, in addition to being a less efficient and nutritious animal feed than the corn itself.
Ethanol can be a net energy producer, if made from sugar cane or switchgrass, but takes more energy, water and fertilizer made from petroleum, to grow the corn, than it returns in fuel.
It's time for Congress to cut out the subsidies for this farce, and return economic sense to both agriculture and energy production.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
More Mad Cow Disease in Canada
The United States has taken more than its fair share of grief for the two documented case of BSE, jocularly called Mad Cow Disease, within its borders. Both came on cattle imported from Canada, and no case has ever been proven out of cattle bred in the U.S. This is a proud record that should be the envy of the world.
To see what a major accomplishment this is, what a great testiment to the wholesomeness, healthfuness and sound production standards followed by the U.S. cattle industry, you need only look at other countries.
Mad Cow Disease originated in England and spread to Europe some 20 years ago. It ravaged the cattle industry there, as little was know in those days of how to stop it or what caused it. Subsequently, it has been narrowed down to the now-banned practice of grinding up dead cows as bone meal in cattle feed. Bone meal used in cattle feed is now vegetarian-based, most frequently out of soybenas. This has greatly stemmed the disease. However, other countries have not been as rigorous as the U.S. in enforcing this ban, and Mad Cow Disease continues to break out there.
Such was the case in Canada this week, where the 12th case was documented. Japan has had some 27 documented cases. Numerous cases have been documented in South Korea. This is understandable, as these Asian countries with little land area to grow feed, import much of their feedstuffs and do not control the manufacture.
What is outrageous is that Japan and South Korea continue to ban some U.S. beef, and have unreasonably strict controls on all U.S. beef imports. The U.S. has the tightest controls on earth on its cattle feed, and no Mad Cow cases in its own cattle.
Rather than risk the health of their consumers daily by selling them their own domestically-produced beef, Japan and South Korea should be freely and gratefully importing beef with a much better health record from the U.S.
The truth is that this has become a political, rather than a health, issue. Smaller countries love to kick sand in the face of the big, mighty United States. This is what they're doing on beef imports. This is against their own best interests, and the health of their citzens.
To see what a major accomplishment this is, what a great testiment to the wholesomeness, healthfuness and sound production standards followed by the U.S. cattle industry, you need only look at other countries.
Mad Cow Disease originated in England and spread to Europe some 20 years ago. It ravaged the cattle industry there, as little was know in those days of how to stop it or what caused it. Subsequently, it has been narrowed down to the now-banned practice of grinding up dead cows as bone meal in cattle feed. Bone meal used in cattle feed is now vegetarian-based, most frequently out of soybenas. This has greatly stemmed the disease. However, other countries have not been as rigorous as the U.S. in enforcing this ban, and Mad Cow Disease continues to break out there.
Such was the case in Canada this week, where the 12th case was documented. Japan has had some 27 documented cases. Numerous cases have been documented in South Korea. This is understandable, as these Asian countries with little land area to grow feed, import much of their feedstuffs and do not control the manufacture.
What is outrageous is that Japan and South Korea continue to ban some U.S. beef, and have unreasonably strict controls on all U.S. beef imports. The U.S. has the tightest controls on earth on its cattle feed, and no Mad Cow cases in its own cattle.
Rather than risk the health of their consumers daily by selling them their own domestically-produced beef, Japan and South Korea should be freely and gratefully importing beef with a much better health record from the U.S.
The truth is that this has become a political, rather than a health, issue. Smaller countries love to kick sand in the face of the big, mighty United States. This is what they're doing on beef imports. This is against their own best interests, and the health of their citzens.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Oh those dusty country roads
A new study by University of Colorado geologists that carbon-dated the dust layers of rural soil in the West, claims that most of it has piled up since man started populating the regions in the 1800s. It restates the usual environmentalist bromides about grazing, plowing up grass to plant crops and driving rubber-tired vehicles on unpaved roads--all the stuff we do to live on a daily basis in the Western U.S.
If only man had left the Western land alone, the way God intended it--untouched, undisturbed and undespoiled. As if that nirvana ever existed or worked.
Grazing, rather than destroying the land, protects and nourishes the land. That's why God populated it with wild horses, buffalo, deer, elk and antelope. They eat the grass, and cause it to reseed and be fertilized, as their hooves break the surface of the soil to allow water and other nutrients access to the grassroots. Just like the cityslicker's lawn dies if he doesn't harvest (mow) it and water it, the western range has always been the same way.
Substituting the more economically-useful and productive beef cow and sheep for the wildlife has not appreciably changed the ecology of the land. The same process of nature for nourishing the native grasses and soil is carried out by these animals.
There was a reason for the dust bowl of the 1930s--large expanses of grass was plowed up for farming, and the livestock removed. Grass is what holds the soil in the arid West, and grazing animals are what nourishes the grass. There'd be a similar dustbowl today if all the livestock were removed and the ground were left to lie there "undisturbed."
Just as forerst and range fires are caused by outlawing logging, letting the dead trees and brush (tinder) build up on the forest floor (what the enviros call leaving the forest alone in its natural state), the western range only flourishes when it is managed by animals.
Tragically, the Colorado geologists are only yet another in a long line of intellectuals who failed to comprehend the basic processes of nature. When will they ever learn, as ranchers have, out of basic economic necessity?
If only man had left the Western land alone, the way God intended it--untouched, undisturbed and undespoiled. As if that nirvana ever existed or worked.
Grazing, rather than destroying the land, protects and nourishes the land. That's why God populated it with wild horses, buffalo, deer, elk and antelope. They eat the grass, and cause it to reseed and be fertilized, as their hooves break the surface of the soil to allow water and other nutrients access to the grassroots. Just like the cityslicker's lawn dies if he doesn't harvest (mow) it and water it, the western range has always been the same way.
Substituting the more economically-useful and productive beef cow and sheep for the wildlife has not appreciably changed the ecology of the land. The same process of nature for nourishing the native grasses and soil is carried out by these animals.
There was a reason for the dust bowl of the 1930s--large expanses of grass was plowed up for farming, and the livestock removed. Grass is what holds the soil in the arid West, and grazing animals are what nourishes the grass. There'd be a similar dustbowl today if all the livestock were removed and the ground were left to lie there "undisturbed."
Just as forerst and range fires are caused by outlawing logging, letting the dead trees and brush (tinder) build up on the forest floor (what the enviros call leaving the forest alone in its natural state), the western range only flourishes when it is managed by animals.
Tragically, the Colorado geologists are only yet another in a long line of intellectuals who failed to comprehend the basic processes of nature. When will they ever learn, as ranchers have, out of basic economic necessity?
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Behind fluctuating beef demand
After many years of strong, growing retail beef demand in America's supermarkets and restaurants, 2005 saw beef demand decline by 2.5%, 2006 by 6.6%, while 2007 was up 1.75%.
Traditionally, the U.S. beef industry sells all it produces. The declines in 2005 and 2006 are a function of reduced production by the beef industry, not necessarily a drop in consumer's desire to purchase beef. They bought all that was available.
Drought and other natural disasters, high grain prices caused by corn being diverted to make ethanol for gasoline, and other lesser reasons have stalled the increase in the nation's beef cowherd. In fact, it's dropped. There are fewer cows, and therefore fewer calves being born.
This is not an altogether negative situation for the beef industry. In a supply and demand market, a shortage of supply increases prices received for what is available. That's happened for beef cattle until recently, and made retail prices for beef more expensive too. At the same time, over-production in beef's main competing meats, chicken and pork, has made them much less expensive than beef. This has made tough competition in the meatcase for the more expensive beef.
Should American cattlemen panic? Hardly. Most market factors are very positive and bode well for the future. The tight supply of beef, and shrinking national cowherd alone, foretell an upswing for the cattle business.
Raw statistics don't tell the whole story.
Traditionally, the U.S. beef industry sells all it produces. The declines in 2005 and 2006 are a function of reduced production by the beef industry, not necessarily a drop in consumer's desire to purchase beef. They bought all that was available.
Drought and other natural disasters, high grain prices caused by corn being diverted to make ethanol for gasoline, and other lesser reasons have stalled the increase in the nation's beef cowherd. In fact, it's dropped. There are fewer cows, and therefore fewer calves being born.
This is not an altogether negative situation for the beef industry. In a supply and demand market, a shortage of supply increases prices received for what is available. That's happened for beef cattle until recently, and made retail prices for beef more expensive too. At the same time, over-production in beef's main competing meats, chicken and pork, has made them much less expensive than beef. This has made tough competition in the meatcase for the more expensive beef.
Should American cattlemen panic? Hardly. Most market factors are very positive and bode well for the future. The tight supply of beef, and shrinking national cowherd alone, foretell an upswing for the cattle business.
Raw statistics don't tell the whole story.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
New Farm Bill on the Way?
The farm media are panting about the urgent necessity of a new Farm Bill, as the present one is expired and living on a brief extension. They are both overstating the need for one, and the likelihood that Congress will pass one in this politically hyper-charged presidential election year.
The current bill the House and Senate ag committees are allegedly "compromising on," containing some $9 billion in new spending, will undoubtedly be vetoed by President Bush. The president has suddenly found his backbone and the resolve to get a handle on spending after 7 years in office, and is doing what he should have been doing all along--vetoing budget-busting legislation.
Another extension of the current Farm Bill, until after the election in November, is a much more likely prospect than enactment of the expansive, expensive bill the Democratic Congress is half-heartedly fashioning. The votes to override a Bush veto don't exist. The wildcard is how important the farm vote is in the presidential campaign--maybe difference-making in only a handful of states--and how the pols calculate the relative importance of that.
Federal farm subsidy levels on crops are set in the Farm Bill, and the commodity futures markets watch that, as they seek to manipulate cash crop prices. The lack of a Farm Bill may already be written into the equation, and the effect could be minimal or not at all.
Once the Iowa primary is over, the presidential candidates ignore farm policy, as anyone who reads or watchs the mass media can readily see. They have bigger fish to fry.
The current bill the House and Senate ag committees are allegedly "compromising on," containing some $9 billion in new spending, will undoubtedly be vetoed by President Bush. The president has suddenly found his backbone and the resolve to get a handle on spending after 7 years in office, and is doing what he should have been doing all along--vetoing budget-busting legislation.
Another extension of the current Farm Bill, until after the election in November, is a much more likely prospect than enactment of the expansive, expensive bill the Democratic Congress is half-heartedly fashioning. The votes to override a Bush veto don't exist. The wildcard is how important the farm vote is in the presidential campaign--maybe difference-making in only a handful of states--and how the pols calculate the relative importance of that.
Federal farm subsidy levels on crops are set in the Farm Bill, and the commodity futures markets watch that, as they seek to manipulate cash crop prices. The lack of a Farm Bill may already be written into the equation, and the effect could be minimal or not at all.
Once the Iowa primary is over, the presidential candidates ignore farm policy, as anyone who reads or watchs the mass media can readily see. They have bigger fish to fry.
Friday, February 22, 2008
The beef recall farce
The mass media is all agog about the record USDA recall of ground beef from the Chino, California Hallmark plant. You'd swear we'd be reading of deaths and disease gripping America like a giant plague, just any minute.
Now the word is, that while politically incorrect to point out, the PETA videographers took advantage of the spanish-speaking-only workers at the plant and got them to act out the dastardly fork lifting of allegedly downer cattle for the video.
That's right, the whole thing was faked, by PETA taking advantage of Mexican Nationals who didn't know they were being used.
Who's the racist here? Not me for pointing out the truth, but PETA for manipulating a minority group for their own selfish ends.
Yep, you got to read what Rush Limbaugh calls the Driveby Media with a grain of salt...
Now the word is, that while politically incorrect to point out, the PETA videographers took advantage of the spanish-speaking-only workers at the plant and got them to act out the dastardly fork lifting of allegedly downer cattle for the video.
That's right, the whole thing was faked, by PETA taking advantage of Mexican Nationals who didn't know they were being used.
Who's the racist here? Not me for pointing out the truth, but PETA for manipulating a minority group for their own selfish ends.
Yep, you got to read what Rush Limbaugh calls the Driveby Media with a grain of salt...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)