The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) ban on the slaughter of so-called "downer" cattle garnered major publicity, like it was a huge step foreward for American beef, saving the consuming public from all manner of filth and disease.
Now the truth emerges: fewer than 1,000 head of the 34 million head slaughtered last year, were killed under the non-ambulatory regulations. The old rule was that non-ambulatory cattle, that became that way after they arrived at the packing house, could be re-inspected and slaughtered if no disease was found. Now no non-ambulatory cattle can be slaughtered for human consumption.
As a fig leaf to try and buy cheap grace, the new rule is great window dressing. In terms of actual achievement in improving public health, there isn't any. No unhealthy cattle were slaughterd before, because they were inspected individually by USDA inspectors before they were allowed through the slaughter line.
This is just one more example of how radical, vegetarian, animal rights groups like HSUS and PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) can forment all kinds of press coverage and phony scares, only to have very little actual results, since their sensationalist charges were overblown to start with.
The downer cattle flap came from highly questionable video HSUS staged at a California packing plant. They got non-English speaking packing house workers to demonstrate pushing non-ambulatory cattle into the slaughter line, when probably the hapless foreign workers HSUS was taking advantage of, didn't even know what they were doing.
(HSUS, which stands for the Humane Society of the United States, is playing on a similar name to the very respected, non-controversial mainstream group American Humane Society).
Tragically, the liberal press and many innocent, well-intentioned people fall for the radical group's publicity stunts. They never take the time to find out the truth.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
South Korean beef circus continues
A deal is a deal to most people and nations. The U.S. and South Korea signed a comprehensive trade pact less than a month ago, which includes the full resumption of U.S. beef exports to South Korea.
The anti-government leftist opposition in South Korea, egged on by vegetarians and animal rightists in the U.S., are demonstrating in the streets, suing in the courts and threatening politicians with their careers, if U.S. beef is allowed in the country.
The South Korean premier still swears the deal is on, and that the beef trade will resume in June. But he continues to play a cat and mouse game, trying to placate the U.S. and the South Korean opposition at the same time. Only God really knows what the actuall situation is with the trade pact with South Korea.
The premier is his own worst enemy, saying soothing things to the South Koreans to play down the whole controversy, when what he really needs to do is bang the podium and tell them the unvarnished truth.
Here is what he needs to say: "Our own South Korea beef herd is hopelessly corrupted with BSE. We have had nearly 30 cases, while the U.S. has had only two, both out of cattle imported from Canada. For the peace of mind and good health of our people, we need wholesome, safe U.S. beef to upgrade the quality and safety of what we feed our people. That's why I'm proceeding immediately with importing U.S. beef."
The leftists in South Korea are obviously coordinating their smear campaign against U.S. beef with the leftists in the U.S., as today Barack Obama came out and urged President Bush not to send any South Korean trade pact to the U.S. Senate for ratification. (As if he ever shows up to take part in Senate debate or vote on any legislation anyway. Of the 100 Senators, what right does he, of all people, have to say anything about it?)
South Korea has double dealt on the beef issue from the get-go. Numerous shipments of U.S. beef, after agreeing to receive them, have been returned for trivial paperwork errors or alleged "bone fragments" that U.S. inspectors could not find after they were returned. Straight forward, truthful, honest integrity on the part of South Korea is needed to unravel this circus.
The anti-government leftist opposition in South Korea, egged on by vegetarians and animal rightists in the U.S., are demonstrating in the streets, suing in the courts and threatening politicians with their careers, if U.S. beef is allowed in the country.
The South Korean premier still swears the deal is on, and that the beef trade will resume in June. But he continues to play a cat and mouse game, trying to placate the U.S. and the South Korean opposition at the same time. Only God really knows what the actuall situation is with the trade pact with South Korea.
The premier is his own worst enemy, saying soothing things to the South Koreans to play down the whole controversy, when what he really needs to do is bang the podium and tell them the unvarnished truth.
Here is what he needs to say: "Our own South Korea beef herd is hopelessly corrupted with BSE. We have had nearly 30 cases, while the U.S. has had only two, both out of cattle imported from Canada. For the peace of mind and good health of our people, we need wholesome, safe U.S. beef to upgrade the quality and safety of what we feed our people. That's why I'm proceeding immediately with importing U.S. beef."
The leftists in South Korea are obviously coordinating their smear campaign against U.S. beef with the leftists in the U.S., as today Barack Obama came out and urged President Bush not to send any South Korean trade pact to the U.S. Senate for ratification. (As if he ever shows up to take part in Senate debate or vote on any legislation anyway. Of the 100 Senators, what right does he, of all people, have to say anything about it?)
South Korea has double dealt on the beef issue from the get-go. Numerous shipments of U.S. beef, after agreeing to receive them, have been returned for trivial paperwork errors or alleged "bone fragments" that U.S. inspectors could not find after they were returned. Straight forward, truthful, honest integrity on the part of South Korea is needed to unravel this circus.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Farm Bill only highlights Dem's Pork Barrel spending
The Democrats seized control of Congress in the 2006 election by blasting the Republican majority at that time for budget earmarks and uncontrolled spending.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The Democrats didn't reform earmarks. They only made is easier for members to bury them in the verbiage of a bill, with less attention called to them, making them harder for the press and public to find. The Farm Bill, as well as much other recently passed legislation, is loaded with earmarks. The bloated Farm Bill increases spending by $30 billion over 10 years. One estimate is that in 2008 there were 11,610 earmarks from individual legislators, totaling $17.2 billion in the 12 appropriations acts for 2008.
Just two of the hundreds of earmarks in recent legislation include Hillary Clinton's earmark for a Woodstock Museum in New York and Barack Obama's earmark for a Carp Barrier on the Great Lakes in Illinois.
All the earmark spending is built into the baseline of next year's budget, so they replace this year's earmarks with new ones in next year's budget, without adding to the overall spending total. This is out-and-out fraud.
This would be a great campaign issue for 2008, except that Republicans slip in earmarks for spending in their districts at nearly the same rate Democrats do. Democrats encourage this, so that no one can raise the truth about earmarks.
There is only a brave handful of solons who are untainted and can legitimately blast earmarks, including Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake. Even John McCain is less tainted by earmarks than your garden variety Senator or Representative. He just lacks the guts to take on the fight.
Like they say inside the beltway in Washington "To get along, go along."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The Democrats didn't reform earmarks. They only made is easier for members to bury them in the verbiage of a bill, with less attention called to them, making them harder for the press and public to find. The Farm Bill, as well as much other recently passed legislation, is loaded with earmarks. The bloated Farm Bill increases spending by $30 billion over 10 years. One estimate is that in 2008 there were 11,610 earmarks from individual legislators, totaling $17.2 billion in the 12 appropriations acts for 2008.
Just two of the hundreds of earmarks in recent legislation include Hillary Clinton's earmark for a Woodstock Museum in New York and Barack Obama's earmark for a Carp Barrier on the Great Lakes in Illinois.
All the earmark spending is built into the baseline of next year's budget, so they replace this year's earmarks with new ones in next year's budget, without adding to the overall spending total. This is out-and-out fraud.
This would be a great campaign issue for 2008, except that Republicans slip in earmarks for spending in their districts at nearly the same rate Democrats do. Democrats encourage this, so that no one can raise the truth about earmarks.
There is only a brave handful of solons who are untainted and can legitimately blast earmarks, including Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake. Even John McCain is less tainted by earmarks than your garden variety Senator or Representative. He just lacks the guts to take on the fight.
Like they say inside the beltway in Washington "To get along, go along."
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
"Green" meets reality in the Denver Post
The Food Editor of The Denver Post devoted today's weekly food section to cooking the perfect steak. This is certainly a worthwhile use of repertorial enterprise, paper and ink. It is encouraging anytime a food editor isn't a vegetarian or so hopelessly "green" and organic as to be useless.
The section and its depth was overall, quite impressive. One little subsection was a real riot.
The editor decided to interview somebody actually in the beef production business, and selected Wayne Kruse, owner of the Centennial Livestock Auction in Ft. Collins, a ranch near Wellington and a member of the Colorado Beef Board. The editor proceeded to extol the virtues of organic grassfed beef to Kruse, and asked him how to get the perfect grassfed steak. Kruse said grassfed was "like shoe leather" and to make his steak corn fed.
She did interview a couple of professional chefs, detailing the various steak cuts, what to look for and what to buy. Mercifully, the recipes relied basically on the quality and taste of the beef, not a bunch of sauces, side dishes and treatments to disguise the beef.
In fact, I tried one of the methods to season my steak for supper tonight. I like the way I do it better, although I may have had too lean a steak to really develop the flavor. The article even mentions buying the steak where I buy mine: USDA choice from Sam's Club. It has thicker cuts that grill better, and better quality meat for less money than your typical supermarket.
Having gotton used to seeing beef butchered, so to speak, in mass media accounts, it was refreshing to see a relatively positive and friendly treatment of the subject.
The section and its depth was overall, quite impressive. One little subsection was a real riot.
The editor decided to interview somebody actually in the beef production business, and selected Wayne Kruse, owner of the Centennial Livestock Auction in Ft. Collins, a ranch near Wellington and a member of the Colorado Beef Board. The editor proceeded to extol the virtues of organic grassfed beef to Kruse, and asked him how to get the perfect grassfed steak. Kruse said grassfed was "like shoe leather" and to make his steak corn fed.
She did interview a couple of professional chefs, detailing the various steak cuts, what to look for and what to buy. Mercifully, the recipes relied basically on the quality and taste of the beef, not a bunch of sauces, side dishes and treatments to disguise the beef.
In fact, I tried one of the methods to season my steak for supper tonight. I like the way I do it better, although I may have had too lean a steak to really develop the flavor. The article even mentions buying the steak where I buy mine: USDA choice from Sam's Club. It has thicker cuts that grill better, and better quality meat for less money than your typical supermarket.
Having gotton used to seeing beef butchered, so to speak, in mass media accounts, it was refreshing to see a relatively positive and friendly treatment of the subject.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
USDA releases CRP land for feed production
You can tell the campaign season is on his hot and heavy, when the looney government attempts to look like they're doing something about the nation's problems, start to come out. Motion is more imporant than actual help or a well thought-out plan.
Because livestock producers are complaining about the high cost of grain to feed their animals, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is going to allow land to be taken out of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to raise feed for livestock. To the untrained eye this may look like a real solution. It's anything but.
In the first place, no good crop land is in the CRP. It is a well known fact that landowners take the least productive land they own and put it in CRP. Only if the land is so poor it can't be leased to someone for more than the CRP payment amount, or it slopes and can't be irrigated, or it has bad alkalai soil or a severe infestation of weeds or bugs--then it is put in CRP.
No great amount of feed, certainly not enough to bring relief from high grain prices, can be raised on CRP land. The good productive land is already in production, raising grain to sell at the current high prices.
Secondly, it is the same fallacy as releasing oil from the nation's petroleum reserve to bring down high gas prices. There's about enough oil in the reserve to last a week or so, at the rate Americans burn up oil. That won't affect the oil market one whit.
So it is with feed from CRP land. Mark my words: USDA's action today won't drive down the Chicago Board of Trade grain futures contracts tomorrow. Nobody that really knows how agriculture works is intimidated. This is a farce.
Because livestock producers are complaining about the high cost of grain to feed their animals, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is going to allow land to be taken out of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to raise feed for livestock. To the untrained eye this may look like a real solution. It's anything but.
In the first place, no good crop land is in the CRP. It is a well known fact that landowners take the least productive land they own and put it in CRP. Only if the land is so poor it can't be leased to someone for more than the CRP payment amount, or it slopes and can't be irrigated, or it has bad alkalai soil or a severe infestation of weeds or bugs--then it is put in CRP.
No great amount of feed, certainly not enough to bring relief from high grain prices, can be raised on CRP land. The good productive land is already in production, raising grain to sell at the current high prices.
Secondly, it is the same fallacy as releasing oil from the nation's petroleum reserve to bring down high gas prices. There's about enough oil in the reserve to last a week or so, at the rate Americans burn up oil. That won't affect the oil market one whit.
So it is with feed from CRP land. Mark my words: USDA's action today won't drive down the Chicago Board of Trade grain futures contracts tomorrow. Nobody that really knows how agriculture works is intimidated. This is a farce.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Federal aid for Weld, Larimer Counties set
In one of the few really legitimate uses of federal power, President Bush has declared portions of Weld and Larimer counties, Colorado, disaster areas and eligible for federal economic assistance. Hard hit by a series of tornadoes last week, crops were lost, irrigation systems destroyed, farm buildings wiped out, as well as 150 homes in Windsor destroyed and another 600 damaged.
The federal aid will dovetail with the property owner's private casualty insurance, filling in the gaps for things like temporary housing, utility systems interrupted, reseeding of crops, replacement of livestock, etc. It will also assist the local governments in rebuilding roads and infrastructure, water and sewer systems and public buildings.
Legitimate acts of God, such as these tornadoes, are what government is best positioned to assist with. Unlike the bloated Farm Bill, which lavishes money on those who don't need it, genuine, unpreventable losses like these should be covered.
Despite the federal money and funds from private insurance, what has been most impressive has been the private assistance from volunteers in the clean-up, minor and temporary repairs, financial and human emergency assistance, temporary housing and food, clothing and babysitting. It has truly been a neighbor-to-neighbor, community-to-community effort, so typical of the can-do attitude in rural America.
There's been no bellyaching here, no sitting back, waiting for the government to act. As one lady said at a community church service Sunday morning "We aren't victims, we're survivors."
The federal aid will dovetail with the property owner's private casualty insurance, filling in the gaps for things like temporary housing, utility systems interrupted, reseeding of crops, replacement of livestock, etc. It will also assist the local governments in rebuilding roads and infrastructure, water and sewer systems and public buildings.
Legitimate acts of God, such as these tornadoes, are what government is best positioned to assist with. Unlike the bloated Farm Bill, which lavishes money on those who don't need it, genuine, unpreventable losses like these should be covered.
Despite the federal money and funds from private insurance, what has been most impressive has been the private assistance from volunteers in the clean-up, minor and temporary repairs, financial and human emergency assistance, temporary housing and food, clothing and babysitting. It has truly been a neighbor-to-neighbor, community-to-community effort, so typical of the can-do attitude in rural America.
There's been no bellyaching here, no sitting back, waiting for the government to act. As one lady said at a community church service Sunday morning "We aren't victims, we're survivors."
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Hogs at the trough II
Just in case you thought my recent blog on the sell-out of Republicans on the pork-laden, bloated Farm Bill, joining Democrats to pass it by veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress--now the numbers are in, and the situation is even worse than I reported.
One example of the campaign cash agribusiness firms spread around to get their way, a normally conservative Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado's fourth congressional district, backed the farm bill and voted to override President Bush's veto. She was one who had not read what she voted on, joining the majority in passing a bill that had 37 pages missing, and is of dubious legality. It turns out, she had received over $300,000 in campaign contributions from agribusiness entities.
After serving three quite sensible, conservative terms in the House, generating expensive re-election campaigns against under-qualified but over-funded opponents, Musgrave has turned hard left. She has turned into one more garden variety pork barreller--falling for the philosophy "Tax and Spend--Spend and Elect."
Colorado representatives John Salazar, a gentleman farmer at best, and Mark Udall, outdid her in reaping agribusiness campaign contributions, but not in logrolling the Farm Bill.
Salazar and his brother, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, maintain the fiction of being "moderate Democrats." They are out-and-out liberals, who vote for a conservatiave no-hoper like the Flag Burning Amendment once in a while, in order to claim to be "moderates."
It is very difficult to stomach Musgrave's sellout. Udall, running for the Senate, and the Salazars, we expect such behavior and understand. But Marilyn Musgrave? Please wake me up from this bad dream.
One example of the campaign cash agribusiness firms spread around to get their way, a normally conservative Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado's fourth congressional district, backed the farm bill and voted to override President Bush's veto. She was one who had not read what she voted on, joining the majority in passing a bill that had 37 pages missing, and is of dubious legality. It turns out, she had received over $300,000 in campaign contributions from agribusiness entities.
After serving three quite sensible, conservative terms in the House, generating expensive re-election campaigns against under-qualified but over-funded opponents, Musgrave has turned hard left. She has turned into one more garden variety pork barreller--falling for the philosophy "Tax and Spend--Spend and Elect."
Colorado representatives John Salazar, a gentleman farmer at best, and Mark Udall, outdid her in reaping agribusiness campaign contributions, but not in logrolling the Farm Bill.
Salazar and his brother, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, maintain the fiction of being "moderate Democrats." They are out-and-out liberals, who vote for a conservatiave no-hoper like the Flag Burning Amendment once in a while, in order to claim to be "moderates."
It is very difficult to stomach Musgrave's sellout. Udall, running for the Senate, and the Salazars, we expect such behavior and understand. But Marilyn Musgrave? Please wake me up from this bad dream.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Earth moving on ethanol-food competition for corn
It may not happen until after the November election, since the politicians in Congress need the farm vote for their re-election, but the ground is definitely shifting in the ethanol-food competition for the nation's corn crop.
Livestock producers certainly have trouble making $5-$6 bushel corn prices work, and only make part of the cost back in higher meat prices. This is minor compared to the huge input cost increases for soda pop manufacturers and commercial bakers. They use corn sweetners in vast quantities, because it's always been cheaper than cane or beet sugar. They are trying hard to get the high corn prices back in higher priced goods to consumers at the grocery store, but consumers are finding that ice water, coffee and tea are not so bad afterall, and that they can live without high calorie pastries.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas is one of many solons who have introduced legislation to strip the federal subsidies off ethanol and lower corn price supports from USDA. The recently passed Farm Bill would have been the best and most likely place to have done that, but the lobbyists and legislators needing fall campaign cash came together to leave corn and ethanol untouched.
The consumer pressure to lower, or at least level out, food prices will force some action after the election, no matter who is elected president. The shape of the legislation may look slightly different, depending on whether a Democratic or GOP president is calling the tune, but public pressure will force some action. You can count on it.
Even environmentalists and alternative fuels activists are rapidly coming to the conclusion that ethanol is not a sensible solution to America's energy needs. Ethanol is a net energy user, not provider, once all the farming of the corn, hauling it to ethanol plants and the tremendous amount of energy and water needed at the ethanol plant to extract the alcohol, is figured up. Due to the federal subsidy of about 50 cents a gallon, ethanol is slightly cheaper than gasoline at the pump, but it also gets 5-10% poorer miles-per-gallon than gasoline.
Except for corn farmers, who are reaping big profits on their $5-$6 a bushel corn crop right now, the support is ebbing fast for ethanol.
Livestock producers certainly have trouble making $5-$6 bushel corn prices work, and only make part of the cost back in higher meat prices. This is minor compared to the huge input cost increases for soda pop manufacturers and commercial bakers. They use corn sweetners in vast quantities, because it's always been cheaper than cane or beet sugar. They are trying hard to get the high corn prices back in higher priced goods to consumers at the grocery store, but consumers are finding that ice water, coffee and tea are not so bad afterall, and that they can live without high calorie pastries.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas is one of many solons who have introduced legislation to strip the federal subsidies off ethanol and lower corn price supports from USDA. The recently passed Farm Bill would have been the best and most likely place to have done that, but the lobbyists and legislators needing fall campaign cash came together to leave corn and ethanol untouched.
The consumer pressure to lower, or at least level out, food prices will force some action after the election, no matter who is elected president. The shape of the legislation may look slightly different, depending on whether a Democratic or GOP president is calling the tune, but public pressure will force some action. You can count on it.
Even environmentalists and alternative fuels activists are rapidly coming to the conclusion that ethanol is not a sensible solution to America's energy needs. Ethanol is a net energy user, not provider, once all the farming of the corn, hauling it to ethanol plants and the tremendous amount of energy and water needed at the ethanol plant to extract the alcohol, is figured up. Due to the federal subsidy of about 50 cents a gallon, ethanol is slightly cheaper than gasoline at the pump, but it also gets 5-10% poorer miles-per-gallon than gasoline.
Except for corn farmers, who are reaping big profits on their $5-$6 a bushel corn crop right now, the support is ebbing fast for ethanol.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Uncertain moisture cuts winter wheat crop
In the north central states of the U.S., it is quite popular to plant winter wheat in the fall, which goes dormant in the winter if there is a snow cover to protect the tender young plants, and then begins really growing in the spring.
This year, due to drilling the wheat in dry soil, and a lack of winter snow to protect what plants did come up, many farmers have found no crop in existence and are forced to replant some faster growing crop like milo or spring wheat, so that they can harvest some sort of cash crop. Even though they've stood the expense and trouble of planting once already, they have to to do it again, to have any chance at 2008 income.
Such are the vagaries of farming. the risks you take every year because of the weather. Winter wheat is a great crop when it germinates, the snow cover protects it and spring rains bring it on for a successful crop. A strong wheat market, like the one this year, also helps. But if the weather was wrong, as it was in many northern climes, you're out of luck.
Farmers like the freedom of being self-employed, the wind at their back and the outdoor work in the fresh air, the rural lifestyle. You sacrifice for that, however, missing out on the security of a weekly paycheck, insurance and benefits. You don't get to let someone else worry about the market, high fuel costs, etc. You get to do that yourself.
Farming's a hard, challenging life, and 2008 is proving that all over again.
This year, due to drilling the wheat in dry soil, and a lack of winter snow to protect what plants did come up, many farmers have found no crop in existence and are forced to replant some faster growing crop like milo or spring wheat, so that they can harvest some sort of cash crop. Even though they've stood the expense and trouble of planting once already, they have to to do it again, to have any chance at 2008 income.
Such are the vagaries of farming. the risks you take every year because of the weather. Winter wheat is a great crop when it germinates, the snow cover protects it and spring rains bring it on for a successful crop. A strong wheat market, like the one this year, also helps. But if the weather was wrong, as it was in many northern climes, you're out of luck.
Farmers like the freedom of being self-employed, the wind at their back and the outdoor work in the fresh air, the rural lifestyle. You sacrifice for that, however, missing out on the security of a weekly paycheck, insurance and benefits. You don't get to let someone else worry about the market, high fuel costs, etc. You get to do that yourself.
Farming's a hard, challenging life, and 2008 is proving that all over again.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
When you see the hand of God
Today was the tornado, covered on national television in glowing detail, in some of the most verdant, fertile farmland in Colorado, in a mile-wide belt from Gilchrist to Windsor, and beyond.
Farmers now plow with tractors taller than they are, with dual back wheels, pulling 8-tandem plows. They break up sod in huge sheets, quickly and efficiently. Similarly, after the crop grows, huge combines move rapidly over field, bringing in the grain in massive truckloads. Farmers of yesteryear could only dream of tilling the acreage today's farmer can work by himself with modern equipment.
As miraculous as all that sounds, a sight seen around farm towns like Gilchrist and Windsor everyday--it was nothing, as the tornado uprooted huge mature trees like they were twigs, slammed around cars like they were tin cans, and tore the roofs and windows off buildings in the blink of an eye. There still is someone more powerful, more awesome than anything man can create.
God was merciful, as only one life was lost in this tragedy. "Things" can be replaced. Bodies cannot.
But the most beautiful things in small rural communities like these, are how the neighbors pull together, caring for each other and meeting each other's needs without regard to the cost or who gets what or who gets the credit.
Out in rural Colorado, as in rural areas across America, there was no outcry blaming the federal government or demanding their assistance, like in New Orleans. These are hardy, self-reliant people, who welcome in the government only as an afterthought.
Here, you can still see the real genius and spirit of America.
Farmers now plow with tractors taller than they are, with dual back wheels, pulling 8-tandem plows. They break up sod in huge sheets, quickly and efficiently. Similarly, after the crop grows, huge combines move rapidly over field, bringing in the grain in massive truckloads. Farmers of yesteryear could only dream of tilling the acreage today's farmer can work by himself with modern equipment.
As miraculous as all that sounds, a sight seen around farm towns like Gilchrist and Windsor everyday--it was nothing, as the tornado uprooted huge mature trees like they were twigs, slammed around cars like they were tin cans, and tore the roofs and windows off buildings in the blink of an eye. There still is someone more powerful, more awesome than anything man can create.
God was merciful, as only one life was lost in this tragedy. "Things" can be replaced. Bodies cannot.
But the most beautiful things in small rural communities like these, are how the neighbors pull together, caring for each other and meeting each other's needs without regard to the cost or who gets what or who gets the credit.
Out in rural Colorado, as in rural areas across America, there was no outcry blaming the federal government or demanding their assistance, like in New Orleans. These are hardy, self-reliant people, who welcome in the government only as an afterthought.
Here, you can still see the real genius and spirit of America.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Ag fuel price crisis the fed's fault
The cost spiral in agriculture, led by high oil prices, may well be beyond the reach of record grain prices. Farmers might well lose money anyway.
The tragedy is that the federal government could have prevented this artificial crisis. Instead, their actions manufactured it and continue to prolong it. Excessively restrictive environmental regulations have prevented the construction of new, efficient oil refineries for over 30 years. Environmentalists have bottled up oil exploration on this continent, to where the U.S. must buy over 65% of its oil from foreign despots in the middle east, the Soviet Union and Venezuela.
North America has several decades worth of oil reserves, which cannot be accessed due to the refusal to drill in the arctic and off shore in California and Florida. Environmental regulations are bottling up the ability to develop oil from the tar sands in western Canada and oil shale in the Rocky Mountains.
The farcical Senate hearings today, where Sen. Pat Leahy and other demagogues dragged in the presidents of the major oil companies before their commitee, so they could rag on them for several hours might have made great political theatre in the mass media, but did nothing about high gas prices. Leahy and his buddies refuse to allow the steps that will solve the problem. They'd rather reap political hay.
Agriculture is hit harder than any other industry, except possibly transportation, by the huge run-up in oil prices. It takes gasoline to run tractors and other farm equipment over the fields to plant and harvest. Transportation costs are through the roof due to fuel prices, to get the crop to market. Diesel fuel is priced even worse than gasoline, due to outrageous environmental regulations on it, and is used is many tractors and to pump irrigation water. Most fertilizer and pesticides are made from oil, so their cost has risen as well.
The federal government caused the fuel price crisis through its failure to act, and only the feds can solve it. Does gas have to hit $10 a gallon before the liberals allow drilling in ANWAR? The answer is at hand, we just have to be willing as a nation to grab it.
The tragedy is that the federal government could have prevented this artificial crisis. Instead, their actions manufactured it and continue to prolong it. Excessively restrictive environmental regulations have prevented the construction of new, efficient oil refineries for over 30 years. Environmentalists have bottled up oil exploration on this continent, to where the U.S. must buy over 65% of its oil from foreign despots in the middle east, the Soviet Union and Venezuela.
North America has several decades worth of oil reserves, which cannot be accessed due to the refusal to drill in the arctic and off shore in California and Florida. Environmental regulations are bottling up the ability to develop oil from the tar sands in western Canada and oil shale in the Rocky Mountains.
The farcical Senate hearings today, where Sen. Pat Leahy and other demagogues dragged in the presidents of the major oil companies before their commitee, so they could rag on them for several hours might have made great political theatre in the mass media, but did nothing about high gas prices. Leahy and his buddies refuse to allow the steps that will solve the problem. They'd rather reap political hay.
Agriculture is hit harder than any other industry, except possibly transportation, by the huge run-up in oil prices. It takes gasoline to run tractors and other farm equipment over the fields to plant and harvest. Transportation costs are through the roof due to fuel prices, to get the crop to market. Diesel fuel is priced even worse than gasoline, due to outrageous environmental regulations on it, and is used is many tractors and to pump irrigation water. Most fertilizer and pesticides are made from oil, so their cost has risen as well.
The federal government caused the fuel price crisis through its failure to act, and only the feds can solve it. Does gas have to hit $10 a gallon before the liberals allow drilling in ANWAR? The answer is at hand, we just have to be willing as a nation to grab it.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Log rolling trumps common sense every time
Presidential politics and congressional re-election is what's on solons' minds, not common sense or what's good for agriculture in America or the U.S. economy. Prime example number one is the Farm Bill, passed by veto-proof margins in both the House and the Senate.
It is so bad, President Bush will probably veto it symbolically anyway, but it's a done deal--loaded with pork, earmarks and goodies for corporate agriculture and an empty plate for the small farmer. It is larded with welfare for the "poor" in the way of food stamps and food giveaway programs, disguised as "helping family farmers."
With record grain prices and many farmers making money hand over fist, the bill increases grain subsidies anyway. If you wonder if this is true, read the Wall Street Journal article detailing how rural car dealers are having trouble stocking enough fancy new pickups to meet the demand.
At the same time, the bill will chill foreign exports of U.S. grain, a crucially important market, because with the subsidies larded on top, our grain will not be competitive in world markets. It is ludicrous, because our trade negotiators are overseas, getting foreign countries to cut out subsidies of their farmers, at the same time we're increasing ours.
The Farm Bill is a travesty, and many normally sensible solons voted for it just because its an election year and they want to win.
We should adjourn Congress during election years, calling them back into session in December, after the election. They can;t be trusted when votes are at stake.
It is so bad, President Bush will probably veto it symbolically anyway, but it's a done deal--loaded with pork, earmarks and goodies for corporate agriculture and an empty plate for the small farmer. It is larded with welfare for the "poor" in the way of food stamps and food giveaway programs, disguised as "helping family farmers."
With record grain prices and many farmers making money hand over fist, the bill increases grain subsidies anyway. If you wonder if this is true, read the Wall Street Journal article detailing how rural car dealers are having trouble stocking enough fancy new pickups to meet the demand.
At the same time, the bill will chill foreign exports of U.S. grain, a crucially important market, because with the subsidies larded on top, our grain will not be competitive in world markets. It is ludicrous, because our trade negotiators are overseas, getting foreign countries to cut out subsidies of their farmers, at the same time we're increasing ours.
The Farm Bill is a travesty, and many normally sensible solons voted for it just because its an election year and they want to win.
We should adjourn Congress during election years, calling them back into session in December, after the election. They can;t be trusted when votes are at stake.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Higher chicken prices, less beef competition
Corn is a basic cost in all three major species of meat at the U.S. supermarket: chicken, pork and beef. It has gone through the roof due to ethanol production for gasoline, and none of the meats is immune from the effects.
Chicken is only the latest meat to be facing price increases at the meatcase. It is easier to raise the price, because two big companies dominate the chicken business--Tyson and Pilgrim. If you'd like to raise chickens, you go to one of them and buy your unhatched eggs and they'll tell you when you pick them up at which price they'll buy the grown chickens back from you. They rigidly control chicken prices from the fertilized egg to the parts you see packaged in the meatcase.
Pork is nearly like that, although not quite as tightly controlled, while beef is much more of a free market affair. That's because chicken and pork lend themselves to factory style production, while beef cattle don't.
The biggest competitor to beef is cheaper chicken and pork. Beef is high right now, due to tight supplies and high corn prices. However, pork and chicken are as susceptible as beef to the higher corn prices, and were inevitably going to go up too.
Consumers will be frosted at higher chicken prices, but for cattlemen, it's good news indeed--lessening their competition.
Chicken is only the latest meat to be facing price increases at the meatcase. It is easier to raise the price, because two big companies dominate the chicken business--Tyson and Pilgrim. If you'd like to raise chickens, you go to one of them and buy your unhatched eggs and they'll tell you when you pick them up at which price they'll buy the grown chickens back from you. They rigidly control chicken prices from the fertilized egg to the parts you see packaged in the meatcase.
Pork is nearly like that, although not quite as tightly controlled, while beef is much more of a free market affair. That's because chicken and pork lend themselves to factory style production, while beef cattle don't.
The biggest competitor to beef is cheaper chicken and pork. Beef is high right now, due to tight supplies and high corn prices. However, pork and chicken are as susceptible as beef to the higher corn prices, and were inevitably going to go up too.
Consumers will be frosted at higher chicken prices, but for cattlemen, it's good news indeed--lessening their competition.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Conflicting visions pull farmers to and fro
The world wants cheap food and cheap energy, yet at the present time is getting neither.
Farmers, many for the first time in their adult lives, see a chance to make some real money after years of barely hanging on. Yet they are being villified for it. They are grabbing the brass ring, if you will, in the fight to make America energy independent, but it means abandoning their traditional role of feeding the world.
Ethanol from corn has driven prices for the commodity to record levels, to the great profit of many corn growers. But it has caused considerable pain to livestock producers, who buy corn to feed chickens, hogs and fatten cattle. Now they must compete for corn with ethanol refiners, radically skewing the economics and profit margins of livestock production.
Similarly, the sugar used in most commercial baked goods, soda pop and other beverages, is made from corn. These industries have for years found it much more profitable to use corn sweetener rather than cane or beet sugar. Now they too, must compete with ethanol for corn.
All this economic dislocation, for a product that takes more energy to produce than it returns as motor fuel, and according to many environmentalists, is tougher on the environment than fossil fuels. Ethanol pollutes just as much as gasoline, but takes huge quantities of water, land and fertilizer to grow the corn to make it, so the environmental cost is high.
Farmers are torn by these conflicting visions, and inclined to take the quick profits from growing corn while they are available and before a more efficient ethanol source, like sorghum or sugar cane, takes hold. That won't be without controversy, as all those food manufacturers switching back to cane sugar or molasses, will then find themselves switching back to corn.
The more things change, the more they remain the same, the old saw goes. Maybe its right.
Farmers, many for the first time in their adult lives, see a chance to make some real money after years of barely hanging on. Yet they are being villified for it. They are grabbing the brass ring, if you will, in the fight to make America energy independent, but it means abandoning their traditional role of feeding the world.
Ethanol from corn has driven prices for the commodity to record levels, to the great profit of many corn growers. But it has caused considerable pain to livestock producers, who buy corn to feed chickens, hogs and fatten cattle. Now they must compete for corn with ethanol refiners, radically skewing the economics and profit margins of livestock production.
Similarly, the sugar used in most commercial baked goods, soda pop and other beverages, is made from corn. These industries have for years found it much more profitable to use corn sweetener rather than cane or beet sugar. Now they too, must compete with ethanol for corn.
All this economic dislocation, for a product that takes more energy to produce than it returns as motor fuel, and according to many environmentalists, is tougher on the environment than fossil fuels. Ethanol pollutes just as much as gasoline, but takes huge quantities of water, land and fertilizer to grow the corn to make it, so the environmental cost is high.
Farmers are torn by these conflicting visions, and inclined to take the quick profits from growing corn while they are available and before a more efficient ethanol source, like sorghum or sugar cane, takes hold. That won't be without controversy, as all those food manufacturers switching back to cane sugar or molasses, will then find themselves switching back to corn.
The more things change, the more they remain the same, the old saw goes. Maybe its right.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Cattle numbers going down, beef prices up
The latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on activity in the nation's cattle feedlots showed more cattle sold than projected to packers, with slower refilling of feedlot pens after cattle were sold. This means beef prices will be rising, as fewer head of cattle will be available later in 2008 and particularly in 2009, analysts said.
This is a function of drought cutting cow numbers and the calf crop, slowing replacements, higher prices for corn and the tearing up of pastures to plant corn to take advantage of the high prices. In 2008, pork and chicken supplies will be ample to make up for any beef shortage, but both may decline in numbers in 2009, due to high corn prices, analysts said.
High corn prices are having another effect at the feedlots, grain analysts said, as winter wheat is expected to be cheaper to feed than corn. This means more wheat in the feedlot ration and less corn. Early bookings of wheat indicate greater use of it in animal feed, which will mean less going into flour for baked goods and human consumptiion.
The higher corn prices are due, of course, to ethanol production bidding up the price of the corn crop, and causing cattlemen to seek cheaper alternatives. This could also increase the price of flour, as wheat is being diverted to livestock production.
This was predicted recently on this blog, and is now confirmed by the early data emanating from the feedlots and the grain elevators. Stay tuned.
This is a function of drought cutting cow numbers and the calf crop, slowing replacements, higher prices for corn and the tearing up of pastures to plant corn to take advantage of the high prices. In 2008, pork and chicken supplies will be ample to make up for any beef shortage, but both may decline in numbers in 2009, due to high corn prices, analysts said.
High corn prices are having another effect at the feedlots, grain analysts said, as winter wheat is expected to be cheaper to feed than corn. This means more wheat in the feedlot ration and less corn. Early bookings of wheat indicate greater use of it in animal feed, which will mean less going into flour for baked goods and human consumptiion.
The higher corn prices are due, of course, to ethanol production bidding up the price of the corn crop, and causing cattlemen to seek cheaper alternatives. This could also increase the price of flour, as wheat is being diverted to livestock production.
This was predicted recently on this blog, and is now confirmed by the early data emanating from the feedlots and the grain elevators. Stay tuned.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Abnormal cattle pricing season forecast
Most cattle industry analysts agree that the long term outlook for cattle prices is good, due to tight supplies of cattle at all levels. Drought in the southwest has cut cow herd numbers and lowered the calf crop. Midwestern farmers have found it much more lucrative to raise corn for ethanol than keep cattle. Bad snows a year ago in parts of Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska cut cow herd numbers too.
The question is the near term, specifically this summer. Most analysts expect prices to tank around mid-July, as they usually do and rebound in the fall, which would be a normal, seasonal pattern.
A few analysts are seeing uncharacteristic strength for summer cattle prices, due to the opening of South Korea to U.S. beef and the need to keep slaughter rates up to serve it. A few others think cattle numbers are a lot lower than many officials have acknowledged so far, and that will reflect itself in a stronger summer market, due to tight supplies of both slaughter-ready cattle and replacements to go into the feedlot. Both events would lead to higher prices.
That's what's fun about forecasting cattle prices--everyone has a different opinion, providing fodder for the morning coffee klatch, going on in hundreds of cafes in rural towns across America.
The question is the near term, specifically this summer. Most analysts expect prices to tank around mid-July, as they usually do and rebound in the fall, which would be a normal, seasonal pattern.
A few analysts are seeing uncharacteristic strength for summer cattle prices, due to the opening of South Korea to U.S. beef and the need to keep slaughter rates up to serve it. A few others think cattle numbers are a lot lower than many officials have acknowledged so far, and that will reflect itself in a stronger summer market, due to tight supplies of both slaughter-ready cattle and replacements to go into the feedlot. Both events would lead to higher prices.
That's what's fun about forecasting cattle prices--everyone has a different opinion, providing fodder for the morning coffee klatch, going on in hundreds of cafes in rural towns across America.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Bloated Farm Bill is veto proof
The election-year Christmas Tree, called by some a Farm Bill, has now passed both houses of Congress by more than a two-thirds, meaning a presidential veto can be overridden.
The budget-buster grants goodies all over the agricultural map, each with the name of a congressman or Senator attached, to aid in their re-election campaign, or result in several large special interest campaign contributions.
President Bush should veto the bill anyway, as a symbol of congressional irresponsibility and log rolling. It is a reproach on the whole system of federal budgeting and spending. Farmers and ranchers who take their business seriously should be embarassed by the bill, as they are painted as little more than slaves in the welfare system.
In these times of record grain prices, yielding record profits to farmers, the bill still provides subsidies for each crop. The bill even makes it tougher for USDA officials to save money. Field hearings must be held to close local ASCS offices or cut personnel administratively.
Even more shameful, the bill provides major increases in spending for food stamps and other federal feeding programs, when not all the money currently available gets used. USDA has resorted to running radio and television ads to entice people to accept the government largesse.
This Farm Bill codifies all the absolute worst abuses of congressional earmarks and quid pro quo lobbyist rewards for big campaign contributions. There deserves to be a public and mass media outcry about this travesty, but most people know so little about agriculture, and care even less, that the bill's passage will be a coronation rather than the condemnation it so richly deserves.
The budget-buster grants goodies all over the agricultural map, each with the name of a congressman or Senator attached, to aid in their re-election campaign, or result in several large special interest campaign contributions.
President Bush should veto the bill anyway, as a symbol of congressional irresponsibility and log rolling. It is a reproach on the whole system of federal budgeting and spending. Farmers and ranchers who take their business seriously should be embarassed by the bill, as they are painted as little more than slaves in the welfare system.
In these times of record grain prices, yielding record profits to farmers, the bill still provides subsidies for each crop. The bill even makes it tougher for USDA officials to save money. Field hearings must be held to close local ASCS offices or cut personnel administratively.
Even more shameful, the bill provides major increases in spending for food stamps and other federal feeding programs, when not all the money currently available gets used. USDA has resorted to running radio and television ads to entice people to accept the government largesse.
This Farm Bill codifies all the absolute worst abuses of congressional earmarks and quid pro quo lobbyist rewards for big campaign contributions. There deserves to be a public and mass media outcry about this travesty, but most people know so little about agriculture, and care even less, that the bill's passage will be a coronation rather than the condemnation it so richly deserves.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Farm worker shortage courtesy of Big Labor
A serious crisis is brewing in rural America--namely, a shortage of farm workers for planting, cultivating and the harvest in this crop year. The U.S. Department of Labor and state government officials are caving in to Big Labor, who resist the granting of H2 visas to temporary foreign workers, primarily from Mexico, to alleviate the shortage.
Big Labor knows nothing about agriculture and doesn't care to learn. They do know about union organizing and dues collection, and that despite the fame of Cesar Chavez, they have been singularly unsuccessful in signing up farm workers. In essence, they are saying, "play our way or you don't play."
Farm groups are crying out for workers from New York to Colorado and everywhere in between, but are being ignored. The Bush Administration, is petulently ignoring the crisis as payback for rural areas failing to back its immigration amnesty program, and pressuring Congress to defeat it. So they've joined Big Labor in saying "play our way or you don't play."
The Colorado legislature passed, and the governor signed, a bill just this last week to provide for guest workers to come in on H2 visas, but will probably be trumped by the Bush Labor Department.
This is very shortsighted on the Bush Administration's part, and even that of Big Labor. In fact, if H2 visas were reliably issued and enforced. the illegal immigration problem would never has become the national crisis it is today. Most Mexicans would love to come to the U.S. just for the season, and make enough money to return home for the rest of year, where they really prefer to live.
It is economics that forces them to immigrate illegally. Most of the problem would be eliminated, or would never have come up, if Mexican citizens could legally and openly cross the border to work, and then return.
Big Labor knows nothing about agriculture and doesn't care to learn. They do know about union organizing and dues collection, and that despite the fame of Cesar Chavez, they have been singularly unsuccessful in signing up farm workers. In essence, they are saying, "play our way or you don't play."
Farm groups are crying out for workers from New York to Colorado and everywhere in between, but are being ignored. The Bush Administration, is petulently ignoring the crisis as payback for rural areas failing to back its immigration amnesty program, and pressuring Congress to defeat it. So they've joined Big Labor in saying "play our way or you don't play."
The Colorado legislature passed, and the governor signed, a bill just this last week to provide for guest workers to come in on H2 visas, but will probably be trumped by the Bush Labor Department.
This is very shortsighted on the Bush Administration's part, and even that of Big Labor. In fact, if H2 visas were reliably issued and enforced. the illegal immigration problem would never has become the national crisis it is today. Most Mexicans would love to come to the U.S. just for the season, and make enough money to return home for the rest of year, where they really prefer to live.
It is economics that forces them to immigrate illegally. Most of the problem would be eliminated, or would never have come up, if Mexican citizens could legally and openly cross the border to work, and then return.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Cockeyed court decree hurts Animal I.D.
The left-leaning U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, an urban court with no discernible expertise in agriculture, has opened up all the major databases of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to private data mills, breaching the privacy of tens of thousands of farmers. The data mills mine the data to sell things to farmers and build sales leads for thousands of marketing businesses.
The data is collected in confidential filings farmers make to apply for government programs and loans. It is no different than filing a personal financial statement with a bank to obtain a loan. That information is not made public, and the government should be no different.
The court ruling comes at a particularly ackward and sensitive time for USDA's voluntary Animal Identification program, which urges farmers and ranchers to register their animals so they can be traced from birth to slaughter, when a disease such as BSE breaks out or a public health scare like E. coli needs to be rooted out.
Farm organizations fought hard to keep Animal I.D. voluntary, rather than another government mandate. This court ruling will certainly make producers think twice about whether to register their animals.
There are numerous legal precedents for keeping private proprietary information private and confidential. Competitve businesses can gain mightily for their own profit if they can find out what the competition is doing. This court ruling allows that in agriculture, and provides a definite basis for the ruling to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and overturned.
We can only hope that the more free enterprise-oriented justices of the Supreme Court see the validity of private and confidential data, unlike their brethren on the DC Court of Appeals.
The data is collected in confidential filings farmers make to apply for government programs and loans. It is no different than filing a personal financial statement with a bank to obtain a loan. That information is not made public, and the government should be no different.
The court ruling comes at a particularly ackward and sensitive time for USDA's voluntary Animal Identification program, which urges farmers and ranchers to register their animals so they can be traced from birth to slaughter, when a disease such as BSE breaks out or a public health scare like E. coli needs to be rooted out.
Farm organizations fought hard to keep Animal I.D. voluntary, rather than another government mandate. This court ruling will certainly make producers think twice about whether to register their animals.
There are numerous legal precedents for keeping private proprietary information private and confidential. Competitve businesses can gain mightily for their own profit if they can find out what the competition is doing. This court ruling allows that in agriculture, and provides a definite basis for the ruling to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and overturned.
We can only hope that the more free enterprise-oriented justices of the Supreme Court see the validity of private and confidential data, unlike their brethren on the DC Court of Appeals.
Monday, May 12, 2008
European Union lifting ban on U.S. chicken?
The arcane and bureaucratic ways of the European Union (EU) turn very slowly, but appear to be opening the door to allow imports of U.S. chicken into member countries. This is after more than a decade of outlawing it because it allegedly contains growth promotants and hormones that are unhealthy.
The EU uses this seem lame excuse to ban U.S. beef imports. If you've tried to eat beef in Europe, its easy to see that they desperately need U.S. beef imports. Beef on the continent is mostly used dairy cows. It is tough and tastes bad, as you would expect. You eat a lot more pork and chicken when you are in Europe, believe me.
What is especially farcical about the EU ban in both U.S. beef and chicken, is that the domestically raised European meat is loaded with growth stimulants and hormones. And they aren't the benign ones allowed in the United States. They are in much greater concentrations than would ever be allowed in the U.S., and they are dangerous hormones like Stilbesterol, which has been illegal in the U.S. for years.
Scientists have to virtually smuggle samples of European chicken and beef out of the countries to get it to a lab to test it, as the EU tries to hide its dirty little secret so carefully. Truth is truth, however, and the secret has long been out.
As in most foreign trade disputes, the EU is using a false health ruse as an excuse to protect domestic farmers from competition. Nothing more, nothing less. If indeed they open the market to U.S. chicken, it won't be because the American product has suddenly changed. It'll be because European chicken production has been cut by some dread disease they are keeping under wraps, chicken demand has risen or they need the U.S. product to cover some domestic shortfall.
Europe never was a big market for U.S. beef. It was a great place to dump all the so-called organ meats like livers, kidneys, hearts and tripe, which are considered a delicacy over there, but are hard to sell in the U.S. A small amount of high quality beef was let in to sell in tourist hotels catering to Americans, but that was about it.
The EU market may open one day open the market for U.S. beef, just as they are rumoring it will for chicken. The World Court has sanctioned them for illegal trade barriers in both products, but the ultimate decision will be made by market need, not fairness, justice or scientific fact.
The EU uses this seem lame excuse to ban U.S. beef imports. If you've tried to eat beef in Europe, its easy to see that they desperately need U.S. beef imports. Beef on the continent is mostly used dairy cows. It is tough and tastes bad, as you would expect. You eat a lot more pork and chicken when you are in Europe, believe me.
What is especially farcical about the EU ban in both U.S. beef and chicken, is that the domestically raised European meat is loaded with growth stimulants and hormones. And they aren't the benign ones allowed in the United States. They are in much greater concentrations than would ever be allowed in the U.S., and they are dangerous hormones like Stilbesterol, which has been illegal in the U.S. for years.
Scientists have to virtually smuggle samples of European chicken and beef out of the countries to get it to a lab to test it, as the EU tries to hide its dirty little secret so carefully. Truth is truth, however, and the secret has long been out.
As in most foreign trade disputes, the EU is using a false health ruse as an excuse to protect domestic farmers from competition. Nothing more, nothing less. If indeed they open the market to U.S. chicken, it won't be because the American product has suddenly changed. It'll be because European chicken production has been cut by some dread disease they are keeping under wraps, chicken demand has risen or they need the U.S. product to cover some domestic shortfall.
Europe never was a big market for U.S. beef. It was a great place to dump all the so-called organ meats like livers, kidneys, hearts and tripe, which are considered a delicacy over there, but are hard to sell in the U.S. A small amount of high quality beef was let in to sell in tourist hotels catering to Americans, but that was about it.
The EU market may open one day open the market for U.S. beef, just as they are rumoring it will for chicken. The World Court has sanctioned them for illegal trade barriers in both products, but the ultimate decision will be made by market need, not fairness, justice or scientific fact.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Plant's rights, the new leftist battle cry
Some 20 years ago the noted cowboy humorist Baxter Black did a hilarious poem on plants rights. It equated plants with humans, that feel pain, have feelings when an onion or carrot next to them is removed and have a right to be respected and given its "space" to grow and develop to its full potential.
This was a ludicrous takeoff on animal rights. After all, even 30 or 40 years ago, who'd have thought animals had rights. Try telling that to PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) today. What really has happened is that old time vegetarians, who have always decried eating animals or using their produce like eggs and milk for food, could masquerade behind "animal rights" as a slogan to present their unpopular views in such a way as to gain more traction.
Wacky as it may sound, now environmentalist types and save the earth types are now taking up the cause of plant's rights as a serious mantra. Check out the website anthonywsmith.com for the full story. I heard Smith on the radio tonight, who is exposing this fraud, and he makes complete sense, even if the plant rightists don't.
As he points out, you don't have to be a religious type to appreciate the scripture where God gave man dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish in the sea, the produce and animals of the earth. It goes on elsewhere to tell man to eat these things, that he may grow strong to be "fruitful and multiply."
Smith extrapolates from this that plants rights is a continuation of the attack on the whole Christian Judeo Ethic that underlies much of civilized society. It has been the goal of Communists, Muslims, Nazis and other terrorists of the ages to undermine the prevailing orthodoxy, to advance their own causes.
Smith explains it much more convincingly and cogently than I have incompetently outlined his arguments here. But you get the point: unlike Baxter Black's superb humor of a couple decades ago, now plants rights is serious business.
This was a ludicrous takeoff on animal rights. After all, even 30 or 40 years ago, who'd have thought animals had rights. Try telling that to PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) today. What really has happened is that old time vegetarians, who have always decried eating animals or using their produce like eggs and milk for food, could masquerade behind "animal rights" as a slogan to present their unpopular views in such a way as to gain more traction.
Wacky as it may sound, now environmentalist types and save the earth types are now taking up the cause of plant's rights as a serious mantra. Check out the website anthonywsmith.com for the full story. I heard Smith on the radio tonight, who is exposing this fraud, and he makes complete sense, even if the plant rightists don't.
As he points out, you don't have to be a religious type to appreciate the scripture where God gave man dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish in the sea, the produce and animals of the earth. It goes on elsewhere to tell man to eat these things, that he may grow strong to be "fruitful and multiply."
Smith extrapolates from this that plants rights is a continuation of the attack on the whole Christian Judeo Ethic that underlies much of civilized society. It has been the goal of Communists, Muslims, Nazis and other terrorists of the ages to undermine the prevailing orthodoxy, to advance their own causes.
Smith explains it much more convincingly and cogently than I have incompetently outlined his arguments here. But you get the point: unlike Baxter Black's superb humor of a couple decades ago, now plants rights is serious business.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Strong exports fueling hog prices
Strong exports of pork to Russia and Japan could take hog prices even beyond their current record levels, according to analysts in the industry. Pork carcass cut-out values rose $1.69 to $78.32 per hundredweight, the highest level since June 21, 2007.
Exports were up 57% over the previous year in February, the last month for which data was available. Cash hog and pork prices put in a peak somewhere between May and August each year, so the most likely trend is still up. The domestic pork market is quite good, as the product is cheaper than beef at retail presently, so sales are storng.
This, on the surface, looks like good news as far as the eye can see. Usual behavior by pork producers could bring it all crashing down shortly, however. When prices are high and profitable in any commodity, what happens? They plant or produce more of it.
With the ability to produce a litter of piglets every 90 days, you can build hog numbers quick. Cows produce one calf a year. Buffalo are not too fertile and frequently only produce a calf every two years. Numbers tend to stay in balance for a longer period, because of the lead time involved in expansion. No such luck with hogs.
The business is a great deal more volatile as a result. You can count on many more litters of pigs being born, and the females being held back to breed. In less than a year from now, pig numbers could be burdensome again.
Coming from a beef business person, this advice may not have a reputation for veracity. But having competed against pork all my life, I tell you from experience how it is. Watch pig numbers in a year. See if I'm right.
Exports were up 57% over the previous year in February, the last month for which data was available. Cash hog and pork prices put in a peak somewhere between May and August each year, so the most likely trend is still up. The domestic pork market is quite good, as the product is cheaper than beef at retail presently, so sales are storng.
This, on the surface, looks like good news as far as the eye can see. Usual behavior by pork producers could bring it all crashing down shortly, however. When prices are high and profitable in any commodity, what happens? They plant or produce more of it.
With the ability to produce a litter of piglets every 90 days, you can build hog numbers quick. Cows produce one calf a year. Buffalo are not too fertile and frequently only produce a calf every two years. Numbers tend to stay in balance for a longer period, because of the lead time involved in expansion. No such luck with hogs.
The business is a great deal more volatile as a result. You can count on many more litters of pigs being born, and the females being held back to breed. In less than a year from now, pig numbers could be burdensome again.
Coming from a beef business person, this advice may not have a reputation for veracity. But having competed against pork all my life, I tell you from experience how it is. Watch pig numbers in a year. See if I'm right.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Canadian feeders, packers face tough times
New cattle feed rules aimmed at cutting out BSE and restoring Canadian beef in the export market are a costly proposition for cattle feeders and processors.
This is only the most blow in what's been a several year downer for Canadian feeders and packers. As far north as Canada is, the growing season is short, forcing the import of corn and other feedstuffs Alberta cattle feeders need. This is expensive, even more so with $4 and more diesel fuel. Now the new feed rules tighten down the feedlot ration even more, causing costs to skyrocket.
Packers have always had trouble in Canada maintaining a steady, year-around supply of slaughter-ready cattle. Meat packing really doesn't work as a seasonal activity. A plant and staff must be kept busy, due to the heavy investment involved. This necessitates moving cattle back and forth between Canada and the U.S. when supplies north of the border run short. That's even tough, because the major U.S. fed cattle supply is in Kansas and the Texas-Oklahoma panhandle, a long haul from Canada. And fuel costs have made that an even more costly proposition.
These factors always made U.S. observers wonder how meat packing could possibly work in Canada, and now the question has been answered: it probably can't.
This is only the most blow in what's been a several year downer for Canadian feeders and packers. As far north as Canada is, the growing season is short, forcing the import of corn and other feedstuffs Alberta cattle feeders need. This is expensive, even more so with $4 and more diesel fuel. Now the new feed rules tighten down the feedlot ration even more, causing costs to skyrocket.
Packers have always had trouble in Canada maintaining a steady, year-around supply of slaughter-ready cattle. Meat packing really doesn't work as a seasonal activity. A plant and staff must be kept busy, due to the heavy investment involved. This necessitates moving cattle back and forth between Canada and the U.S. when supplies north of the border run short. That's even tough, because the major U.S. fed cattle supply is in Kansas and the Texas-Oklahoma panhandle, a long haul from Canada. And fuel costs have made that an even more costly proposition.
These factors always made U.S. observers wonder how meat packing could possibly work in Canada, and now the question has been answered: it probably can't.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
National Pack sale to JBS debated in Senate panel
Liberal Democratic Senators like to call private businesses, under the threat of supoena, to testify at "oversight" hearings so they and their liberal interest group sympathizers can rag on them.
So it was this week before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, as National Packing Co. executives were called, to defend their proposed sale to JBS, the Brazilian giant who bought Swift Packing. R-CALF and a coterie of liberal college professors monopolized the hearing and blasted the transaction. JBS execs, along with the National Packing execs, defended the deal, but their testimony fell on deaf ears, compared to the "red meat" from the special interest groups.
This was a typical formula hearing, one of dozens the Democratic majority calls to promulgate their philosophy. Virtually none of the hearings result in legislation, Congress' function afterall, and are soon forgotton, except to mind-numbed readers of the Congressional Record.
It is the Bush Justice Department who could come closest to stopping the sale of National to JBS. The betting is, they won't, and the battling senators won't either. But its makes for great theatre and press clippings. what they're really after.
So it was this week before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, as National Packing Co. executives were called, to defend their proposed sale to JBS, the Brazilian giant who bought Swift Packing. R-CALF and a coterie of liberal college professors monopolized the hearing and blasted the transaction. JBS execs, along with the National Packing execs, defended the deal, but their testimony fell on deaf ears, compared to the "red meat" from the special interest groups.
This was a typical formula hearing, one of dozens the Democratic majority calls to promulgate their philosophy. Virtually none of the hearings result in legislation, Congress' function afterall, and are soon forgotton, except to mind-numbed readers of the Congressional Record.
It is the Bush Justice Department who could come closest to stopping the sale of National to JBS. The betting is, they won't, and the battling senators won't either. But its makes for great theatre and press clippings. what they're really after.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
HSUS sale barn video outrageous
As we learned at the Kentucky Derby last Saturday, animals do get sick or injured and die, just like human beings do. It is tragic and heart rendering when it happens, but it happens. Living creatures don't live on this earth forever, and there is sorrow and sadness left behind when they depart.
So the videographers and stagers of the animal rights radicals at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), not to be confused with the very ethical and well-respected American Humane Society, are at it again, after successfuly shutting down Hallmark meat packing in California, due to video they shot alleging the slaughter of so-called "downer" cows. There is substantial evidence that HSUS staged the video, taking advantage of spanish-speaking packing house workers who really didn't understand what they were being goaded into doing.
This time HSUS shot video at four sale barns, two of which I'm familiar with, and are among the best run such facilities in the industry--the auction markets at Hereford, Texas and Clovis, New Mexico. The video is of downer cows in the pens of the auctions, a scene you could get about every day at any sale barn. Cattle die there, not because they are mistreated, but because they are culls that can no longer breed and reproduce, and the owners shipped them to market to be sold for slaughter. Sometimes they don't make it that far.
Ho hum. Happens everyday. So what else is new?
Both auction market owners, who are fine men, do not run sick or diseased cattle through the sale ring, do not leave them in pens with other animals, put them down safely and humanely, and dispose of them lawfully as soon as possible.
How far does this industry have to go to placate the vegetarian and animal rights radicals at groups like HSUS, who use our industry and its everyday practices that are fully within the law, both legally and ethically, to advance their political agenda through tear-jerking photos and video in the press?
A few sympathizers who don't understand how the world works, or are hopeless Pollyannas seeing the world only through rose colored glasses, put in with HSUS. But thus far, there is no public clamor in sympathy with them. The liberal media, who share the HSUS political agenda, give them publicity on their outrageous stunts, but outside of a few publicity-seeking politicians in Congress--there is no outcry.
John Q. Public is a lot smarter than the radicals and their friends in the mass media think.
So the videographers and stagers of the animal rights radicals at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), not to be confused with the very ethical and well-respected American Humane Society, are at it again, after successfuly shutting down Hallmark meat packing in California, due to video they shot alleging the slaughter of so-called "downer" cows. There is substantial evidence that HSUS staged the video, taking advantage of spanish-speaking packing house workers who really didn't understand what they were being goaded into doing.
This time HSUS shot video at four sale barns, two of which I'm familiar with, and are among the best run such facilities in the industry--the auction markets at Hereford, Texas and Clovis, New Mexico. The video is of downer cows in the pens of the auctions, a scene you could get about every day at any sale barn. Cattle die there, not because they are mistreated, but because they are culls that can no longer breed and reproduce, and the owners shipped them to market to be sold for slaughter. Sometimes they don't make it that far.
Ho hum. Happens everyday. So what else is new?
Both auction market owners, who are fine men, do not run sick or diseased cattle through the sale ring, do not leave them in pens with other animals, put them down safely and humanely, and dispose of them lawfully as soon as possible.
How far does this industry have to go to placate the vegetarian and animal rights radicals at groups like HSUS, who use our industry and its everyday practices that are fully within the law, both legally and ethically, to advance their political agenda through tear-jerking photos and video in the press?
A few sympathizers who don't understand how the world works, or are hopeless Pollyannas seeing the world only through rose colored glasses, put in with HSUS. But thus far, there is no public clamor in sympathy with them. The liberal media, who share the HSUS political agenda, give them publicity on their outrageous stunts, but outside of a few publicity-seeking politicians in Congress--there is no outcry.
John Q. Public is a lot smarter than the radicals and their friends in the mass media think.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Korea already hedging on U.S. beef imports
Facing tough opposition from domestic farmers, South Korea is already backtracking on a new trade agreement it signed with the U.S. to open its borders to U.S. beef from animals of any age.
While the Korean Ag Minister did go on national television to call a lot of the things being said about U.S. beef "lies," he also announced that all U.S. beef would be quarantined at the dock and more rigorously tested before it is allowed into the country. American meat industry officials, at least, consider this backtracking on the agreement to open Korea's borders.
Korea has just barely opened its borders to U.S. beef, ever since cutting it off entirely during the overblown BSE scare. Numerous shipments under the previous 20-month age restriction, were still rejected due to minute bone fragments or other trumped up causes. The added border inspections cannot be considered a good sign.
It boils down to domestic politics--finding some way to placate Korea's farmers, who see U.S. beef supplanting their own in the marketplace, and good faith on the part of the government, to uphold the trade agreement it signed. In most Asian countries, where the domestically-produced beef is primarily from dairy cows and not feedlot fattened, the corn-fed U.S. beef from young beef-breed animals quickly gains a toehold in the market, due to its superior taste, tenderness and texture.
The Bush administration can be counted on to hold Korea's feet to the fire on the beef agreement, which it made a lynchpin for the broader trade agreement the Korea premier signed a few weeks ago at Camp David. A new administration in Washington may not have similar resolve.
While the Korean Ag Minister did go on national television to call a lot of the things being said about U.S. beef "lies," he also announced that all U.S. beef would be quarantined at the dock and more rigorously tested before it is allowed into the country. American meat industry officials, at least, consider this backtracking on the agreement to open Korea's borders.
Korea has just barely opened its borders to U.S. beef, ever since cutting it off entirely during the overblown BSE scare. Numerous shipments under the previous 20-month age restriction, were still rejected due to minute bone fragments or other trumped up causes. The added border inspections cannot be considered a good sign.
It boils down to domestic politics--finding some way to placate Korea's farmers, who see U.S. beef supplanting their own in the marketplace, and good faith on the part of the government, to uphold the trade agreement it signed. In most Asian countries, where the domestically-produced beef is primarily from dairy cows and not feedlot fattened, the corn-fed U.S. beef from young beef-breed animals quickly gains a toehold in the market, due to its superior taste, tenderness and texture.
The Bush administration can be counted on to hold Korea's feet to the fire on the beef agreement, which it made a lynchpin for the broader trade agreement the Korea premier signed a few weeks ago at Camp David. A new administration in Washington may not have similar resolve.
Monday, May 5, 2008
FDA rendering plan lacks reality
Detached, ivory tower bureaucrats at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have crafted a proposed new regulation for the rendering of diseased beef carcasses that would probably result in not rendering them at all. The real question at that point, is how do you dispose of tens of thousands of whole beef carcasses each year?
Without consulting or listening to those in the industry who really understand the problem, FDA is proposing a regulation that requires that the brain and spinal cord be removed from each carcass before it can be rendered. This time consuming, onerous practice would most likely draw the response "why bother?" rather than improve consumer safety, as FDA is charged with doing.
With BSE in mind, allegedly residing in the brain and spinal cord of diseased cattle (an unproven hyothesis, by the way), FDA takes the simplistic approach of "by golly, we'll just cut it out." While it has been illegal for several years to use rendered cattle parts in cattle feed, FDA thinks it can be doubly sure by forcing renderers to cut out the brain and spinal cord.
Rather than solve a problem, and add to the margin of safety, FDA is merely creating another, bigger one.
Without consulting or listening to those in the industry who really understand the problem, FDA is proposing a regulation that requires that the brain and spinal cord be removed from each carcass before it can be rendered. This time consuming, onerous practice would most likely draw the response "why bother?" rather than improve consumer safety, as FDA is charged with doing.
With BSE in mind, allegedly residing in the brain and spinal cord of diseased cattle (an unproven hyothesis, by the way), FDA takes the simplistic approach of "by golly, we'll just cut it out." While it has been illegal for several years to use rendered cattle parts in cattle feed, FDA thinks it can be doubly sure by forcing renderers to cut out the brain and spinal cord.
Rather than solve a problem, and add to the margin of safety, FDA is merely creating another, bigger one.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
The best Farm Bill money can buy
Millions spent on lobbying by corporate farming interests has not gone unrewarded in the "compromise" Farm Bill being put together by the Democrats in Congress.
First, the limit is kept high on the income permitted a "farmer" to keep receiving federal subsidy checks. Many pushed for $200,000 per year, the White House has pushed $500,000 per year, but the Democrats selected $750,000 per year. This allows the tax-loss corporate farm operators to keep the federal gravy pipeline full. If the purpose of farm subsidies is to benefit small family farmers, even the $200,000 limit is too high. With a limited pot to divy up, keeping the limit high means low payouts to the family farmers who really need it, by spreading the money around to the big corporate farmers too.
Second, despite the record high corn prices that are wrecking food prices worldwide, caused by heavily-subsidized ethanol producers outbidding farmers and ranchers for corn, ethanol subsidies are kept in place. Archer Midland Daniels, the largest corn refiner, has spent millions to keep ethanol subsidies in place. Their money was not wasted.
Third, the proposed bill actually expands "conservation" of so-called fragile farm lands. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has been a huge raid on the federal treasury for years, and with land being pulled out in order to raise suddenly lucrative grain crops, it was thought spending would finally drop on CRP.
Two main things happen with CRP: Farmers and ranchers put their least productive land--that with alkalai problems, too hilly or swampy to irrigate, too prone to weeds and pests--in the CRP. The other is that when its time to retire, you put that chilly marginal farm in the northern climes in CRP and move to Arizona or Florida. You do that because you make more on CRP from the land than it will rent for to the neighbors.
Either is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer's money. You really can't blame the landowners--they're only taking advantage of what's legally available to them. The question is: should it be?
Lastly, this so-called Farm Bill, as you'd expect from a city-dominated, Democratic Congress, vastly increases the spending on federal feeding programs like food stamps. The truth is, the Farm Bill is largely a welfare bill. Welfare to corporate farmers and welfare to anyone who can qualify for food stamps. The government pays to run ads in the mass media now, to get more people to sign up for food stamps, since some of the existing amount of money goes unused. To increase the amount of money available is insane.
Certainly you can't blame the grocery industry for spending heavily on lobbying for food stamp money, or the farm organizations for lobbying heavily on CRP funding.
But truly what we have is the best Farm Bill that money can buy.
First, the limit is kept high on the income permitted a "farmer" to keep receiving federal subsidy checks. Many pushed for $200,000 per year, the White House has pushed $500,000 per year, but the Democrats selected $750,000 per year. This allows the tax-loss corporate farm operators to keep the federal gravy pipeline full. If the purpose of farm subsidies is to benefit small family farmers, even the $200,000 limit is too high. With a limited pot to divy up, keeping the limit high means low payouts to the family farmers who really need it, by spreading the money around to the big corporate farmers too.
Second, despite the record high corn prices that are wrecking food prices worldwide, caused by heavily-subsidized ethanol producers outbidding farmers and ranchers for corn, ethanol subsidies are kept in place. Archer Midland Daniels, the largest corn refiner, has spent millions to keep ethanol subsidies in place. Their money was not wasted.
Third, the proposed bill actually expands "conservation" of so-called fragile farm lands. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has been a huge raid on the federal treasury for years, and with land being pulled out in order to raise suddenly lucrative grain crops, it was thought spending would finally drop on CRP.
Two main things happen with CRP: Farmers and ranchers put their least productive land--that with alkalai problems, too hilly or swampy to irrigate, too prone to weeds and pests--in the CRP. The other is that when its time to retire, you put that chilly marginal farm in the northern climes in CRP and move to Arizona or Florida. You do that because you make more on CRP from the land than it will rent for to the neighbors.
Either is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer's money. You really can't blame the landowners--they're only taking advantage of what's legally available to them. The question is: should it be?
Lastly, this so-called Farm Bill, as you'd expect from a city-dominated, Democratic Congress, vastly increases the spending on federal feeding programs like food stamps. The truth is, the Farm Bill is largely a welfare bill. Welfare to corporate farmers and welfare to anyone who can qualify for food stamps. The government pays to run ads in the mass media now, to get more people to sign up for food stamps, since some of the existing amount of money goes unused. To increase the amount of money available is insane.
Certainly you can't blame the grocery industry for spending heavily on lobbying for food stamp money, or the farm organizations for lobbying heavily on CRP funding.
But truly what we have is the best Farm Bill that money can buy.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Save the family farm?
The longstanding cry of politicians everywhere is "Save the family farm." We're hearing today in the presidential campaign, and in the halls of election-year Congress, as the windbags try to craft a Farm Bill.
It certainly evokes a Norman Rockwellesque nostalgia for the good old days, and an idyllic vision of another time in America, full of the old time virtues of love, respect and family. All the warm fuzzies are great, but what are the modern day realities?
The economics of the 2000s have dictated large corporate farming. Just about anywhere you want to pick out in the West or Midwest, it's easy to find areas where there used to be 5-10 farms or ranches that are now one, in the hands of wealthy individuals or corporate interests. Those "family farms" that are left have either Mom or Dad with a good job in town, or an oil hammerhead pumping on the back 40. The unvarnished truth is that farming and ranching on a small scale is rarely an economic proposition.
Those who like the rural lifestyle pay for the privilege, either with a job off the farm or a very simple standard of living, or both. It takes capital to operate on a year-around basis in the highly seasonal agriculture business, and that frequently comes from the economies of scale that elude the small operator.
If you own the land free and clear, either through inheritance or outside income, you can make a living off 300 cows or the crops off a 600-acre farm. Anything less than that, and it takes a job in town to subsidize the operation. There is not sufficient income to meet debt repayment. That's the reality of agriculture.
It's not really a question of whether its good or bad, but it just is. American taxpayers don't want to pay, nor would it make much sense, what it would cost to really save the family farm. Just like most other businesses, the profits and wealth go to the innovative, creative and efficient. And it requires a certain scale to attain that.
The farm or ranch is no different.
It certainly evokes a Norman Rockwellesque nostalgia for the good old days, and an idyllic vision of another time in America, full of the old time virtues of love, respect and family. All the warm fuzzies are great, but what are the modern day realities?
The economics of the 2000s have dictated large corporate farming. Just about anywhere you want to pick out in the West or Midwest, it's easy to find areas where there used to be 5-10 farms or ranches that are now one, in the hands of wealthy individuals or corporate interests. Those "family farms" that are left have either Mom or Dad with a good job in town, or an oil hammerhead pumping on the back 40. The unvarnished truth is that farming and ranching on a small scale is rarely an economic proposition.
Those who like the rural lifestyle pay for the privilege, either with a job off the farm or a very simple standard of living, or both. It takes capital to operate on a year-around basis in the highly seasonal agriculture business, and that frequently comes from the economies of scale that elude the small operator.
If you own the land free and clear, either through inheritance or outside income, you can make a living off 300 cows or the crops off a 600-acre farm. Anything less than that, and it takes a job in town to subsidize the operation. There is not sufficient income to meet debt repayment. That's the reality of agriculture.
It's not really a question of whether its good or bad, but it just is. American taxpayers don't want to pay, nor would it make much sense, what it would cost to really save the family farm. Just like most other businesses, the profits and wealth go to the innovative, creative and efficient. And it requires a certain scale to attain that.
The farm or ranch is no different.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Doubts creep in on Korean beef deal
The much-vaunted deal to open South Korea's borders to U.S. beef seems to be hanging by a thread.
Demonstrations and protests by Korean farmers and consumers against the deal are fed by internet and other media-inspired falsehoods about how U.S. people won't eat their own beef, how U.S. beef is a secret plot to kill Koreans and, of course, U.S. beef imports will drive South Korean farmers out of business.
U.S. beef organizations had doubts about the deal from the get-go. While always welcoming more foreign sales of U.S. beef, after all the stops and starts of the Korean beef trade, the new deal always did seem too good to be true. It still remains to see how much actual tonnage of U.S. beef is allowed into the country.
The Korean beef deal is the lynchpin of a much larger trade deal between the two countries, so Korean politicians are now running around the country, trying to tamp down opposition to the U.S. beef deal. How successful that effort will be remains to be seen.
Foreign trade is very tricky, at best, and the South Korean beef deal is starting out as a textbook example of that.
Demonstrations and protests by Korean farmers and consumers against the deal are fed by internet and other media-inspired falsehoods about how U.S. people won't eat their own beef, how U.S. beef is a secret plot to kill Koreans and, of course, U.S. beef imports will drive South Korean farmers out of business.
U.S. beef organizations had doubts about the deal from the get-go. While always welcoming more foreign sales of U.S. beef, after all the stops and starts of the Korean beef trade, the new deal always did seem too good to be true. It still remains to see how much actual tonnage of U.S. beef is allowed into the country.
The Korean beef deal is the lynchpin of a much larger trade deal between the two countries, so Korean politicians are now running around the country, trying to tamp down opposition to the U.S. beef deal. How successful that effort will be remains to be seen.
Foreign trade is very tricky, at best, and the South Korean beef deal is starting out as a textbook example of that.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Record profits for food and grain companies
In these days of sky-high grain prices, which in turn, have led to major increases in the cost of food, it is only natural that big public companies dealing in these commodities, would report record profits.
Duh--that shouldn't even be news, it's so expected and par for the course.
Except that you have leftist news reporters who hate the free enterprise system, crying out for Robin Hood (take from the haves and give it to the have nots) measures to level the playing field. The truth is, these firms earned these profits the old-fashioned way: they worked hard, risked capital and investment dollars, made smart, exerienced decisions and reaped what they sowed.
That's the American way, isn't it?
Yes, but it's also the American way to gripe and complain, our judgement clouded by the old saw "the grass if always greener on the other side of the fence."
There are farmers, many of them small time family farmers, reaping record profits raising wheat and corn. It's not just big corporate America who benefits. The thousands of employees at the big companies earning the profits are also getting record profit sharing, thanks to high commodity prices. The stockholders of these companies are also seeing a run-up in share prices and dividend payments. Many of them are ordinary folks, who own mutual funds in their 401Ks.
That truly is the American way.
Boom and bust is the story of free enterprise, and it all evens out over time.
Duh--that shouldn't even be news, it's so expected and par for the course.
Except that you have leftist news reporters who hate the free enterprise system, crying out for Robin Hood (take from the haves and give it to the have nots) measures to level the playing field. The truth is, these firms earned these profits the old-fashioned way: they worked hard, risked capital and investment dollars, made smart, exerienced decisions and reaped what they sowed.
That's the American way, isn't it?
Yes, but it's also the American way to gripe and complain, our judgement clouded by the old saw "the grass if always greener on the other side of the fence."
There are farmers, many of them small time family farmers, reaping record profits raising wheat and corn. It's not just big corporate America who benefits. The thousands of employees at the big companies earning the profits are also getting record profit sharing, thanks to high commodity prices. The stockholders of these companies are also seeing a run-up in share prices and dividend payments. Many of them are ordinary folks, who own mutual funds in their 401Ks.
That truly is the American way.
Boom and bust is the story of free enterprise, and it all evens out over time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)