A Publication of:
OSU Extension - Fairfield County
831 College Ave., Suite D, Lancaster, OH 43130
and the
BEEF Cattle questions may be directed to the OSU Extension BEEF Team through Stephen Boyles or Stan Smith, Editor
You may subscribe to the weekly Ohio BEEF Cattle letter by sending an e-mail to smith.263@osu.edu
Previous issues of the BEEF Cattle letter
Issue # 784
What Have We Learned Thus Far in 2012? - John F. Grimes, OSU Extension Beef Coordinator
As we move into the month of May, it isn't hard to see that 2012 is shaping up to be quite a bit different from 2011. At this time last year, Ohio producers were besieged by record rainfall and wondering if we were ever going to get corn planted or hay harvested. 2012 has seen an early spring characterized by favorable soil conditions with inconsistent rainfall and temperature patterns. Crop planting is well ahead of schedule and hay harvest will get a much earlier start than in 2011.
The beef industry as a whole has experienced a bit of turbulence when compared to the previous year. One constant has been that the prices that producers have received for nearly all classes of beef cattle have remained strong. While there have been market fluctuations, prices have remained historically high.
Yet, there have been bumps in the road. The drought that gripped large portions of the U.S. cow-calf belt has helped to reduce cow numbers to levels not seen in nearly 60 years. The drought area has reduced in size but significant drought continues to linger in portions of the southern U.S.
However, the biggest difference from 2012 compared to 2011 is the increasingly tough public relations battle that the beef industry has fought with the media and the public. Since early March, the public relations road has been lined with more potholes than bumps. We first had to deal with issues surrounding lean, finely textured beef (LFTB) also distastefully referred to as "pink slime." In late April, the fourth case of BSE, "mad cow disease", was discovered in California. More recently, consumer activist groups have targeted an enzyme called transglutaminase, used for nearly two decades to bind meat cuts together. Not surprisingly, transglutaminase has been referred to as "meat glue" for shock value in the media.
The beef industry is not alone in fighting outside influences on their industry. The pork industry is currently dealing with outside pressure to accelerate the phase-out of the use of gestation-sow stalls. Companies such as McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, Tim Horton's, and more recently Safeway have all made announcements as to the intentions to buy pork from suppliers that do not use gestation-sow stalls. Burger King also announced that they intend to buy eggs from cage-free operations. An unfortunate side-effect of these announcements was the fact that animal activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) were able to steal part of the spotlight and took credit for these developments.
Ultimately, the person who should take credit for some of the developments just mentioned is the consumer. Traditional media and the rapidly growing social-media outlets can advance any issue or cause at a pace that our society has never seen before. The instant availability of information can greatly impact public opinion and consumer confidence as it relates to any agricultural commodity. The beef industry needs to learn some valuable lessons from recent events that have impacted our industry. Let's take a closer look at how two different issues were handled and the ultimate impacts.
Consider the LFTB situation. LFTB has been in the news since long before the firestorm that broke loose this past March. The product received very negative reviews in the 2008 film "Food, Inc." and a series in the New York Times in 2009. On March 5, a news organization called "The Daily" published a story on LFTB. Keep in mind that "The Daily" was established in 2011 geared for distribution through the iPad and iPhone. Shortly after March 5, ABC World News Tonight ran the story and a food activist in Houston, Texas started a petition drive to ask USDA to remove LFTB from school menus. The "pink slime" story lingered for several weeks through March and in to April.
Beef Products, Inc., the manufacturer of LFTB, finally went on the defensive for their product later in March. News conferences and media events were held to defend the product's honor. An event was held that involved three governors and other leaders to tour BPI, Inc's. facilities and even tasting hamburgers with LFTB. Ultimately, the damage was done and this past week BPI, Inc. announced that it would be closing three of its four plants and hundreds of jobs would be lost.
Compare that scenario to the one surrounding the U.S.D.A's April 24, 2012 announcement that the fourth case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease, in U.S. history had been verified in a dairy cow in California. The cow was identified through U.S.D.A's established surveillance program at a rendering plant and was not destined for our food supply. Those who remember the first U.S. discovery of BSE in 2003 can't forget the painful economic impact of that event. Our export trade for beef at that time stopped with several of our major trading partners such as Japan and has taken until this past year to nearly fully recover.
Immediately after the BSE announcement last month, there was a large amount of media coverage for a couple of days and market prices were briefly impacted. At this time, the only noticeable impacts on export trade of beef are that two large retailers in South Korea have pulled American beef from their stores and Indonesia announced it would block U.S. beef imports. The anxiety over the BSE discovery has largely died down since the announcement less than three weeks ago.
Why has the BSE situation been much less impactful than the "pink slime" story? In my opinion, there are a few key reasons. First, this is only the fourth identified case of BSE in U.S. history and no additional cases have been found in the time since the April 24 announcement. We know that BSE can only be transmitted through feed containing meat and bone meal (MBM) from BSE-infected cattle. In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of such ruminant-derived protein supplements in cattle feed. BSE was a significant issue around the globe two decades ago with as high as over 37,000 cases of "mad cow" disease found annually worldwide. In 2011, less than 35 cases of BSE were reported around the world. The disease has been effectively controlled.
Another significant reason that the BSE anxiety was relatively short-lived was the fact that producers and the public have a better understanding of BSE through research and education. The beef industry has been very pro-active with the BSE issue through the distribution of science-based, factual information from industry experts and national and state cattlemen's associations and beef councils through web sites and social media. The public has heard the beef industry's message on BSE early and often and there is an apparent amount of public trust established.
It can be very frustrating when one or our favorite sports teams snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by being too conservative and playing a "prevent defense." Beef Products, Inc. played a "prevent defense" with the "pink slime" issue and paid a heavy price. The game of public opinion with the consumer will be a tough battle and it's a game we cannot afford to lose. We must be pro-active in our defense of the beef industry to insure our product has a place on the consumer's dinner table.
BSE #4 Was No LFTB #1 - John Michael Riley, Asst. Extension Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University
The news of a fourth confirmed U.S. case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) has, for the most part, been digested by the market place. Exports appear to be shored up with Indonesia, a minor beef buyer, the only country choosing to suspend imports of U.S. beef. The latest export data through April 26, 2012 show a slight increase in total weekly sales compared to the previous week, 16,800 metric tons versus 15,500, but still below the rolling four week average of weekly export sales, 18,230. When compared to year ago levels, 2012 exports are 4.5% above 2011 with accumulated sales of beef at 359,800 metric tons versus 344,200 over the same time period in 2011.
Domestically, any harm to beef demand appears to be in the rear view mirror as a result of lean, finely textured beef (LFTB), with the recent BSE case is showing no noticeable signs of a negative response. Collectively, these events speak volumes to information flow and preparation. In a large part, the rapid wave of negativity that LFTB brought about came via social media. To quote Dr. Tonsor from a few weeks ago in this newsletter, "the public is fully in its right to influence how food is produced." More often in this social media driven environment that our markets operate in consumers are becoming better aware of these issues. They are able to share their opinions in a very public arena that filters through the population rapidly. This fast paced flow has created a market that seems to stay on edge, teetering one way or the other depending on whatever the newest tidbit of information may be.
Further, as we have seen with these two events, the response by an industry must come with the same speed and carry the weight of facts and objectivity. With respect to the BSE case, this was a road both the industry and government had been down before. All parties had a working knowledge of what to expect and calculated methods to assure the public that safety was maintained. On the other hand, the LFTB issue was one that caught everyone off guard. The response was not as ready and the message not as clear or concise. This lag was very short lived but the for all intents and purposes the short-term damage had been done. Although no one can predict the next LFTB, the lesson once again shown that this industry, much like that of many agricultural industries, will never be able to rest on its laurels.
Eating Meat is Ethical - Temple Grandin
Humans and animals evolved together. Our brains are tuned into animals. Research with epilepsy patients who had monitors implanted in their brains, showed that the amygdala responds more to animal pictures, compared to pictures of landmarks or people. The amygdala is an important emotion center in the brain. Pictures of both cute and aversive animals got a big response. Recordings from the hippocampus, which is involved with memory, had no differences.
Human beings have an intrinsic bond with animals, but our treatment of animals has ranged from respectful to horrendous. Scientific research indicates that animals have emotions and they feel pain and fear. It is our duty to provide the animals that we raise for food with a decent life. I often get asked, "How can you care about animals and be involved in designing systems in slaughter houses that are used to kill them?" I answered this question in 1990, after I had just completed installation of a new piece of equipment I had designed for handling cattle at slaughter plants. I was standing on a catwalk, as hundreds of cattle passed below to enter my system. In a moment of insight, I thought, none of the cattle going into my system would have existed unless people had bred and raised them.
Our relationship with the cattle should be symbiotic. Symbiosis is a biological concept of a mutually beneficial relationship between two different species. There are many examples of symbiosis or mutualism in nature. One example is ants tending aphids to obtain their sugary secretion and in return, they are protected from predators. Unfortunately the relationship is not always symbiotic and in some cases, the ants exploit the aphids. There are similar problems in poorly managed, large intensive agriculture systems. There are some production practices that must be changed. In the cattle industry, I know many people who are true stewards of both their animals and their land. Their relationship with both the animals and the land is truly symbiotic. It is mutually beneficial to both the animals and the environment. Killing animals for food is ethnical if the animals have what the Farm Animal Welfare Council in England calls a life worth living.
I have been attended grazing conferences and I have learned that when grazing is done right it can improve the rangeland and sequester carbon. Ruminant animals that eat grass are not the environmental wreckers that some people say they are. Rotational grazing can stimulate more plant growth and growing plants help remove carbon from the atmosphere. Ruminant animals, such as cattle, bison, goats, and sheep, are the only way to grow food on rangelands that are not suitable for crops. Ronald C. Follett with the USDA-ARS-NPA in Fort Collins, Colorado, states that grazing lands have the potential to sequester carbon. According to researchers at National University in Panama, converting South American pastureland to soybean production will reduce carbon storage. Organic agriculture would be impossible and extremely difficult without animal manure for fertilizer. Another issue that must be looked at in perspective is methane emissions. It is likely that 80% of all total methane emissions come from coal burning power plants, rice paddies, and landfills.
I have a final reason why I think eating meat is ethnical. My metabolism requires animal protein, and I get lightheaded and unable to concentrate if I go on a vegan diet. There may be metabolic differences in the need for animal protein. There are practices that must be changed to be true stewards of both the animals and the environment.
EDITOR's NOTE: Dr. Grandin originally authored the essay above in response to the recent New York Times contest asking readers why it's ethical to eat meat. When the essay was not accepted for publication in the Times, it was printed on the American Meat Institute Foundation web site.
Forage Focus: Getting More from Your Pasture - Rory Lewandowski, OSU Extension Educator Wayne County, Crossroads EERA
Pasture growth is not evenly distributed across the growing season. This is because most of our pastures are composed of cool season grasses and roughly sixty percent of the total dry matter yield is produced before the end of June. May is typically the month that grass growth "explodes" and pasture based livestock owners struggle to manage the growth. Unfortunately, along with this rapid growth the grass plant is also shifting from vegetative growth to reproductive growth, resulting in the development of a seed head. The nutritional quality of the plant declines as it shifts to reproductive growth and becomes more mature. If high quality forage is desired then seed head development must be prevented.
There are only a couple of ways that I know of to prevent seed head development in an attempt to get more quality grazing from pastures. One is to increase the number of animals during the spring growth flush so that grass growth does not outpace consumption. For this to work the livestock owner must then have a plan to either decrease those animal numbers when grass growth slows down by the end of June, or add additional pasture land at that point, or provide supplemental feed to make up the pasture deficit. A modified version of increasing animal numbers is to only use a portion of the available pasture for grazing and set aside the rest for a cutting of hay. This set aside acreage can be returned to the pasture grazing cycle after a cutting of hay has been removed. The other option is to mechanically mow off seed heads and keep the plant in vegetative growth.
In general, getting more from your pasture requires that management be put into the system. There are two things that can be done that will have a quick impact on pasture productivity; creating pasture divisions and providing access to water in each pasture division. Creating pasture divisions allows the livestock owner to apply management skills and make decisions about where livestock graze, when they graze and for what length of time they graze. Pasture divisions allows the livestock manager some control over grazing height, plant selection and plant rest or recovery periods. The more pasture divisions you have, the more control that can be exercised over these factors. Access to water is critical to managing pasture rotations and livestock performance. I have seen some good pasture management intentions waylaid by lack of access to water.
Getting more useful production from your pasture is possible, but it does not just happen. It requires planning, more fence, access to water, and management skills. For more information about pasture management contact County OSU Extension office.
EDITOR's NOTE: For even more detail on pasture layout, paddock design, and water placement, see this 40 minute presentation from the April 2012 Ohio Grazing School held near Westerville: http://go.osu.edu/MIG8
Characteristics of Small-scale U.S. Livestock Operations - Steve Boyles, OSU Extension Beef Specialist
In 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) conducted the Small-scale U.S. Livestock Operations study. The study focused on livestock operations with annual sales from $10,000 to $499,999 in which the predominant agricultural enterprise was a livestock/animal species such as cattle, poultry, goats, sheep, swine, horses, aquaculture, or other farm animals raised for sale or home use. There are approximately 350,000 farms in the United States fit this definition. Data for the study were collected April 17 to May 18, 2011, from 8,123 of these farms distributed across all 50 States.
Operation characteristics: Nearly 9 of 10 operations had beef cattle and almost half had more than 1 type of livestock. About one-half of small-scale operations were residential/lifestyle farms in which the operator's primary occupation was off-farm. About one fourth were farming occupation farms; and about one-fourth were retirement farms.
The primary operator was at least 65 years old on 37% of small-scale livestock operations and at least 65 years old on 30% percent of all U.S. farm operations. A total of 9% of small-scale livestock operations had a female primary operator compared with 14% percent of all U.S. farm operations. A total of 4% percent of primary operators on small-scale livestock operations were of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin compared with 2.5% of operators on all U.S. farm operations.
Marketing: An auction/sale barn was the most common channel used to market animals or products (88%). About one of four operations marketed animals or products directly to individuals or consumers. Access to slaughter facilities can be a challenge for small-scale operations that want to directly market meat and poultry products to consumers, since some regions of the United States do not have enough slaughter
facilities to meet these needs.
The full report on characteristics of small-scale livestock operations can be viewed at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/smallscale/downloads/Small_scale_is_GenChar.pdf
Visit the OSU Beef Team calendar of meetings and upcoming events
BEEF Cattle is a weekly publication of Ohio State University Extension in Fairfield County and the OSU Beef Team. Contributors include members of the Beef Team and other beef cattle specialists and economists from across the U.S.
All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status. Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Admin. and Director, OSU Extension. TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868
Fairfield County Agriculture and Natural Resources
