It may be the cattleman in me, or some would say the devil, but I would take great delight in this day: that when the turkey is presented to the president for a pre-Thanksgiving presidential pardon, he looks into the eye of the TV cameras and at the assembled press corps and says "This is a fine example of U.S. turkeydom, and we're looking forward to serving this bird on the White House table on Thanksgiving Day, and I want to thank this producer for this generous gift."
Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska came close this year, when they slaughtered a turkey behind her, as she pardoned the ceremonial bird. Allegedly, she did not know what was going on around her, but I think she'd have been doing a real public service by pointing out that turkeys are grown to provide meat, and that the Alaskan industry humanely processes them for our enjoyment.
This same delusion, that somehow the president and governor are doing a great public deed by pardoning a single turkey, to return to live to a ripe old age on a farm somewhere. This is dishonest, and leads to many other fictions and allusions that continue to plague the meat animal industry to this day.
It is this same delusional thinking that has ended horse slaughter in the U.S. Horses are seen as pets, and the public is allowed to think that somehow horses live forever and certainly are never eaten. Try to make that go down in France and other countries, where horse meat is considered a delicacy and dietary necessity.
How much more healthy and real would it be, to openly admit that livestock are raised to provide protein and other essential life-giving nutrients to man--and to point out how humanely, sanitarily and wholesomely they are raised and processed into meat.
I'm not holding my breath, because I don't like to turn blue, for the day that a president or governor declines to pardon a turkey, and instead tells the truth. But what a great day that would be.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Energy development double-edged sword
A big recent story in the Wall Street Journal chronicles the travails of ranchers in the path of oil and gas drilling or other energy development sweeping across the Rocky Mountain and Plains states.
Ranchers frequently don't own all the mineral rights under their property. Even worse, the courts have ruled that surface holders, which includes ranchers, have to allow access to the owners of mineral rights to exploit them.
This means pastures criss-crossed by roads, gas lines and trucks coming and going without closing gates or watching out for livestock. Cattle have died drinking from ponds of polluted water that are a byproduct of gas drilling.
The income from oil and gas development is nice, if you happen to own a share of the minerals rights. You can come out ahead, if you're working with a conscientious oil company, just from the surface holders share and damage mitigation fees.
Energy development is, more often than not, incompatible with livestock production--and even in the best of circumstances, cuts into livestock profits. It is a judgement call whether or not the energy income offsets the livestock losses.
More and more cases are winding up in court, where so far the energy companies have largely won. However, environmentalists put in place by the incoming Obama administration in the federal agencies, and increasing numbers of Democrats in western state houses and congressional delegations, may soon be restoring some equilibrium to the situation.
The crying need for U.S. energy independence is coming face to face with the livestock and ranching business. There are tradeoffs that are different for each person, and only you can decide what's best for you.
Ranchers frequently don't own all the mineral rights under their property. Even worse, the courts have ruled that surface holders, which includes ranchers, have to allow access to the owners of mineral rights to exploit them.
This means pastures criss-crossed by roads, gas lines and trucks coming and going without closing gates or watching out for livestock. Cattle have died drinking from ponds of polluted water that are a byproduct of gas drilling.
The income from oil and gas development is nice, if you happen to own a share of the minerals rights. You can come out ahead, if you're working with a conscientious oil company, just from the surface holders share and damage mitigation fees.
Energy development is, more often than not, incompatible with livestock production--and even in the best of circumstances, cuts into livestock profits. It is a judgement call whether or not the energy income offsets the livestock losses.
More and more cases are winding up in court, where so far the energy companies have largely won. However, environmentalists put in place by the incoming Obama administration in the federal agencies, and increasing numbers of Democrats in western state houses and congressional delegations, may soon be restoring some equilibrium to the situation.
The crying need for U.S. energy independence is coming face to face with the livestock and ranching business. There are tradeoffs that are different for each person, and only you can decide what's best for you.
U.S. economy driving cattle prices down
The U.S. financial collapse has overridden the fundamental soundness of the economics of the beef industry, leading to lower wholesale beef prices, lower cattle futures, and ultimately, lower cash cattle prices at both the feedlot and the sale barn.
Cattle numbers are well under control, and feedlots are very current. Despite the tough general economy, retail beef demand has stayed strong, and packers are able to sell all the beef they produce. U.S. beef exports continue to do well. Corn prices are down, as well as hay and other feed costs for the winter.
By all the normal indicators, it ought to be a great year for cattle prices and profits.
It's not turning out that way, and at the bottom of the pile is the cattle futures market.
It is a speculative crap shoot at best, and in an economy like this one, cattle futures just follow the Stock Market, which is down, down, down. I'm sure you're as impressed as I am at how the election of Barack Obama has straightened out the stock market, stabilized the economy, and brought the troops home from Iraq. Talk about instant action.
Just think how bad things would have been if John McCain had won.
That said, the cattle futures trade at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is out of the control of cattlemen or other segments of the industry. As close as any cattle-connected people can come is the Big 3 packers and a few huge cattle feeders in the Texas-Oklahoma Panhandle. While they have on occasion combined to drive the futures up or down, even these power brokers in the cattle business are helpless right now.
In short, the ordinary cattleman is not immune to the worst economic crisis in our lifetime. We have our houses in order, but events beyond our control are swinging the dog. About the best cattlemen can do is hunker down, and weather the storm with everyone else.
It isn't just, but it's what is.
Cattle numbers are well under control, and feedlots are very current. Despite the tough general economy, retail beef demand has stayed strong, and packers are able to sell all the beef they produce. U.S. beef exports continue to do well. Corn prices are down, as well as hay and other feed costs for the winter.
By all the normal indicators, it ought to be a great year for cattle prices and profits.
It's not turning out that way, and at the bottom of the pile is the cattle futures market.
It is a speculative crap shoot at best, and in an economy like this one, cattle futures just follow the Stock Market, which is down, down, down. I'm sure you're as impressed as I am at how the election of Barack Obama has straightened out the stock market, stabilized the economy, and brought the troops home from Iraq. Talk about instant action.
Just think how bad things would have been if John McCain had won.
That said, the cattle futures trade at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is out of the control of cattlemen or other segments of the industry. As close as any cattle-connected people can come is the Big 3 packers and a few huge cattle feeders in the Texas-Oklahoma Panhandle. While they have on occasion combined to drive the futures up or down, even these power brokers in the cattle business are helpless right now.
In short, the ordinary cattleman is not immune to the worst economic crisis in our lifetime. We have our houses in order, but events beyond our control are swinging the dog. About the best cattlemen can do is hunker down, and weather the storm with everyone else.
It isn't just, but it's what is.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Obama Ag Secretary choice will say a lot
Speculation is rife in ag circles about who President-elect Obama will name as Agriculture Secretary.
It's not rife anywhere else, because in the Obama scheme of things, this is a very low priority appointment. The Secretaries of State and Treasury speak to the rest of the world, both our enemies and friends, so are early must-do's. Ag Secretary will be pretty far down the line.
The best we can hope for is some politician, like former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who briefly ran for president in 2004. Some one from a farm state, in touch with the production realities, will do the least damage. On the other hand, some special interest group zealot, like Carol Tucker Foreman was in the Carter administration, can be very harmful.
Obama would naturally lean to someone like Foreman. But politics, and the need to use up his best diehard soul mates in what he sees as higher priorities, could well let USDA slide to a career pol.
Farm policy needs a good shaking, restoring private enterprise with a lot fewer federal subsidies--particularly of things like ethanol production and food stamps. But this is philosophically opposite of Obama's bent, so it's a lot better to hope for the status quo than some radical, off-the-wall vegetarian, health food nut, New York City-style fast food fat zealot, or anti-bio crop bigot.
Things could be a lot better, if we had some free enterprise, free market conservative reforming agriculture. That's not going to happen in an Obama administration, so the best we can hope for is the doctor's Hippocratic Oath "First, do no harm . . ."
It's not rife anywhere else, because in the Obama scheme of things, this is a very low priority appointment. The Secretaries of State and Treasury speak to the rest of the world, both our enemies and friends, so are early must-do's. Ag Secretary will be pretty far down the line.
The best we can hope for is some politician, like former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who briefly ran for president in 2004. Some one from a farm state, in touch with the production realities, will do the least damage. On the other hand, some special interest group zealot, like Carol Tucker Foreman was in the Carter administration, can be very harmful.
Obama would naturally lean to someone like Foreman. But politics, and the need to use up his best diehard soul mates in what he sees as higher priorities, could well let USDA slide to a career pol.
Farm policy needs a good shaking, restoring private enterprise with a lot fewer federal subsidies--particularly of things like ethanol production and food stamps. But this is philosophically opposite of Obama's bent, so it's a lot better to hope for the status quo than some radical, off-the-wall vegetarian, health food nut, New York City-style fast food fat zealot, or anti-bio crop bigot.
Things could be a lot better, if we had some free enterprise, free market conservative reforming agriculture. That's not going to happen in an Obama administration, so the best we can hope for is the doctor's Hippocratic Oath "First, do no harm . . ."
Saturday, November 8, 2008
World should attack hunger, not global warming
It is probably a fore-drawn conclusion, with Obama as President and liberal Democrat's power strengthened in the U.S. Senate, that the Kyoto treaty will be ratified and vast billions of taxpayer money will be poured into fighting global warming.
Fully implemented, which hasn't and won't happen, the Kyoto accords would lower global warming by three one-hundredths of one degree.
The inconvenient truth is that global cooling is a far bigger threat, according to the most recent scientific data, along with world starvation from not developing agriculture sufficiently in poor countries to feed the teeming masses.
Writing in today's Wall Street Journal weekend edition, Danish scientist and intellectual Bjorn Lomborg points out that while Obama has pledged to spend $150 billion to fight global warming, the same money spent on direct malnutrition policies, immunization against preventable disease, and agricultural research and development, would return 15 to 20 times the good for the world's poor population.
The $150 billion spent on global warming mitigation would return 90 cents on the dollar, at best. Spent the other way, it will return at least 11 times the investment, in benefits.
Lomborg concludes "Change is definitely needed. Focusing on investment in malnutrition and disease could do enourmous good at low cost, brandishing a world where healthier and stronger human beings could take charge of their own lives and deal better with the many challenges of their futures."
The newly ascendant liberals in Washington seem hellbent on a costly "cap and trade" system to mitigate global climate change. It is merely an excuse to raise more billions for bureaucrats to spend. It will raise far more money than Americans would ever stand still for in direct tax increases.
Lomborg, instead, urges a different focus for the upcoming 2009 Copenhagen conference on global warming, that will actually make a difference.
Bet this is the only place you'll read about that.
Fully implemented, which hasn't and won't happen, the Kyoto accords would lower global warming by three one-hundredths of one degree.
The inconvenient truth is that global cooling is a far bigger threat, according to the most recent scientific data, along with world starvation from not developing agriculture sufficiently in poor countries to feed the teeming masses.
Writing in today's Wall Street Journal weekend edition, Danish scientist and intellectual Bjorn Lomborg points out that while Obama has pledged to spend $150 billion to fight global warming, the same money spent on direct malnutrition policies, immunization against preventable disease, and agricultural research and development, would return 15 to 20 times the good for the world's poor population.
The $150 billion spent on global warming mitigation would return 90 cents on the dollar, at best. Spent the other way, it will return at least 11 times the investment, in benefits.
Lomborg concludes "Change is definitely needed. Focusing on investment in malnutrition and disease could do enourmous good at low cost, brandishing a world where healthier and stronger human beings could take charge of their own lives and deal better with the many challenges of their futures."
The newly ascendant liberals in Washington seem hellbent on a costly "cap and trade" system to mitigate global climate change. It is merely an excuse to raise more billions for bureaucrats to spend. It will raise far more money than Americans would ever stand still for in direct tax increases.
Lomborg, instead, urges a different focus for the upcoming 2009 Copenhagen conference on global warming, that will actually make a difference.
Bet this is the only place you'll read about that.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Restaurant woes bad for beef business
Tight economic circumstances for many American families is giving the restaurant industry fits. Particularly hard hit are the middle market chains like Village Inn (in bankruptcy), Appleby's, Bennigan's (corporate locations shut down), Steak n' Ale (many locations shut down), etc. Raising more capital for expansion or at least remodeling, is crimped by the lack of bank liquidity and the U.S. economic crisis.
This is bad news for the beef industry, where well over 50% of the beef sold is through restaurants. Families are cooking more at home, and more downscale at that. That means more vegetarian meals, less expensive chicken and turkey, and more hamburger than steaks and roasts.
This is not altogether bad for the beef business though. Convenience still figures prominently into home cooking, as most wives work outside the home, and are too tired and time-pressed to cook elaborate meals when they get home. Ground beef is at the bottom of a lot of quick, easy, popular meals, be it hamburgers, Mexican food, Italian dishes, etc. Beef like pot roast also lends itself well to all-day cooking crock pot meals.
The well-conceived, famous study by food consultant Faith Popcorn identified consumer Chicken Fatigue, which shows that people grow tired of bland white meat, and eventually crave the texture and stronger flavor of red meat.
Thus far, consumer demand for beef, while showing signs of slowing, remains strong. Exports have continued to grow, taking up a lot of the slack in the domestic market. Exports, too, have slowed as the U.S. dollar strengthens against foreign currencies.
But cattle numbers are well under control, and cowherd expansion has stopped, according to the most recent statistics. This alone will keep cattle prices from falling completely out of bed.
The first two days of the post-election stock market has dropped nearly 1,000 points. Thus far the economy is not buying into the Obama phenomenon. But the beef industry, at least, seems to be well positioned to weather whatever economic storm the U.S. will continue to face.
This is bad news for the beef industry, where well over 50% of the beef sold is through restaurants. Families are cooking more at home, and more downscale at that. That means more vegetarian meals, less expensive chicken and turkey, and more hamburger than steaks and roasts.
This is not altogether bad for the beef business though. Convenience still figures prominently into home cooking, as most wives work outside the home, and are too tired and time-pressed to cook elaborate meals when they get home. Ground beef is at the bottom of a lot of quick, easy, popular meals, be it hamburgers, Mexican food, Italian dishes, etc. Beef like pot roast also lends itself well to all-day cooking crock pot meals.
The well-conceived, famous study by food consultant Faith Popcorn identified consumer Chicken Fatigue, which shows that people grow tired of bland white meat, and eventually crave the texture and stronger flavor of red meat.
Thus far, consumer demand for beef, while showing signs of slowing, remains strong. Exports have continued to grow, taking up a lot of the slack in the domestic market. Exports, too, have slowed as the U.S. dollar strengthens against foreign currencies.
But cattle numbers are well under control, and cowherd expansion has stopped, according to the most recent statistics. This alone will keep cattle prices from falling completely out of bed.
The first two days of the post-election stock market has dropped nearly 1,000 points. Thus far the economy is not buying into the Obama phenomenon. But the beef industry, at least, seems to be well positioned to weather whatever economic storm the U.S. will continue to face.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Ag big election losers
It was well hidden by the Obama-fogged mass media, but Barack Obama is a big fan of far-left, anti-production-agriculture types, who have a totally unrealistic view of farm policy.
Obama uncritically accepted ideas from lefties that would destroy markets, limit food production and put agriculture in an environmentalist, vegetarian staightjacket that could leave the U.S. and the world without adequate food.
Obama's appointment of a Ag Secretary, and farm legislation sought in Congress, will tell an interesting story early in his presidency about his philosophy and priorities.
About the best we can hope for is that Obama will largely ignore agriculture and let the bureaucracy at USDA operate on auto pilot.
We could do much worse. At least they have a vested interest in keeping things like they are, untainted by bold new initiatives. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad, compared to the possible alternative.
Obama uncritically accepted ideas from lefties that would destroy markets, limit food production and put agriculture in an environmentalist, vegetarian staightjacket that could leave the U.S. and the world without adequate food.
Obama's appointment of a Ag Secretary, and farm legislation sought in Congress, will tell an interesting story early in his presidency about his philosophy and priorities.
About the best we can hope for is that Obama will largely ignore agriculture and let the bureaucracy at USDA operate on auto pilot.
We could do much worse. At least they have a vested interest in keeping things like they are, untainted by bold new initiatives. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad, compared to the possible alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)