California Ag Network

Category: Livestock

  • Disaster Assistance to CA Farmers/Producers Impacted by Wildfires & Drought

    California agricultural operations have been significantly impacted by the wildfires and ongoing, severe drought. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has technical and financial assistance available to help farmers and livestock producers recover. Impacted producers should contact their local USDA Service Center to report losses and learn more about program options available to assist in their recovery from crop, land, infrastructure and livestock losses and damages.

    “Production agriculture is vital to the California economy, and USDA stands ready to assist in the recovery from these wildfires and extreme drought conditions,” said Gloria Montaño Greene as Deputy Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC). “I assure you that USDA employees are working diligently to deliver FPAC’s extensive portfolio of disaster assistance programs and services to all impacted agricultural producers.”

    USDA Disaster Assistance for Wildfire and Drought Recovery

    Producers who experience livestock deaths due to wildfires may be eligible for the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP).

    Meanwhile, for both wildfire and drought recovery,  the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP) provides eligible producers with compensation for feed losses as well as water hauling expenses associated with transportation of water to livestock. For ELAP, producers will need to file a notice of loss within 30 days and honeybee losses within 15 days.

    Livestock producers may also be eligible for the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) for 2021 grazing losses due to drought. LFP benefits may be available for loss of grazing acres due to wildfires on federally managed lands on which a producer is prohibited, by a federal agency, from grazing normally permitted livestock. FSA maintains a list of counties eligible for LFP and makes updates each Thursday.

    Additionally, eligible orchardists and nursery tree growers may be eligible for cost-share assistance through the Tree Assistance Program (TAP) to replant or rehabilitate eligible trees, bushes or vines lost during the drought. This complements Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) or crop insurance coverage, which covers the crop but not the plants or trees in all cases. For TAP, a program application must be filed within 90 days.

    “Once you are able to safely evaluate the wildfire or drought impact on your operation, be sure to contact your local FSA office to timely report all crop, livestock and farm infrastructure damages and losses,” said Jacque Johnson, Acting State Executive Director for the Farm Service Agency (FSA) in California. “To expedite FSA disaster assistance, you will likely need to provide documents, such as farm records, herd inventory, receipts and pictures of damages or losses”

    FSA also offers a variety of direct and guaranteed farm loans, including operating and emergency farm loans, to producers unable to secure commercial financing. Producers in counties with a primary or contiguous disaster designation may be eligible for low-interest emergency loans to help them recover from production and physical losses. Loans can help producers replace essential property, purchase inputs like livestock, equipment, feed and seed, cover family living expenses or refinance farm-related debts and other needs.

    Risk Management

    Producers who have risk protection through Federal Crop Insurance or FSA’s NAP should report crop damage to their crop insurance agent or FSA office. If they have crop insurance, producers should report crop damage to their agent within 72 hours of damage discovery and follow up in writing within 15 days. For NAP covered crops, a Notice of Loss (CCC-576) must be filed within 15 days of the loss becoming apparent, except for hand-harvested crops, which should be reported within 72 hours.

    “Crop insurance and other USDA risk management options are there to help producers manage risk because we never know what nature has in store for the future,” said Jeff Yasui, Director of RMA’s Regional Office that covers California. “The Approved Insurance Providers, loss adjusters and agents are experienced and well trained in handling these types of events.”

    Conservation

    Outside of the primary nesting season, emergency and non-emergency haying and grazing of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres may be authorized to provide relief to livestock producers in areas affected by a severe drought or similar natural disasters. Producers interested in haying or grazing of CRP acres should contact their county FSA office to determine eligibility.

    The Emergency Conservation Program and Emergency Forest Restoration Program can assist landowners and forest stewards with financial and technical assistance to restore fencing, damaged farmland or forests.

    USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is always available to provide technical assistance in the recovery process by assisting producers to plan and implement conservation practices on farms, ranches and working forests impacted by natural disasters.

    Long-term damage from wildfires and drought includes forage production loss in pastures and fields and increased wind erosion on crop fields not protected with soil health practices. Visit your local USDA Service Center to learn more about these impacts, potential recovery tactics, and how to take steps to make your land more resilient to drought in the future.

    “USDA can be a very valuable partner to help landowners with their recovery and resiliency efforts,” said Carlos Suarez, NRCS State Conservationist in California. “Our staff will work one-on-one with landowners to make assessments of the damages and develop approaches that focus on effective recovery of the land.”

    Assistance for Communities 

    Additional NRCS programs include the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program, which provides assistance to local government sponsors with the cost of addressing watershed impairments or hazards such as damaged upland sites stripped of vegetation by wildfire, debris removal and streambank stabilization.

    Eligible sponsors include cities, counties, towns, or any federally recognized Native American tribe or tribal organization. Sponsors must submit a formal request (via mail or email) to the state conservationist for assistance within 60 days of the natural disaster occurrence or 60 days from the date when access to the sites become available. For more information, please contact your local NRCS office.

    “EWP provides immediate assistance to communities to mitigate potential hazards to life and property resulting from the fires and particularly the severe erosion and flooding that can occur after the fire,” Suarez said. “We can work with a local sponsor to help a damaged watershed so that lives and property are protected while preventing further devastation in the community.”

    In addition to EWP, Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) is another valuable service that NRCS can provide following a wildfire. NRCS technical assistance can help fire victims with planning cost-effective post fire restoration practices.

    More Information

    On farmers.gov, the Disaster Assistance Discovery Tool, Disaster Assistance-at-a-Glance fact sheet, and Farm Loan Discovery Tool can help producers and landowners determine program or loan options. For assistance with a crop insurance claim, producers and landowners should contact their crop insurance agent. For FSA and NRCS programs, they should contact their local USDA Service Center.

  • Experts Agree: Livestock Markets Not Broken; Affected by Supply & Demand

    With cattle futures reaching new multi-year highs this week, The North American Meat Institute today submitted testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee underscoring the supply and demand fundamentals of beef and livestock markets and opposing further government intervention that will result in unintended consequences.

    “Industry experts, market participants and economists testifying before three different congressional committees in the past two months have found that beef and cattle markets have behaved predictably given supply and demand pressures,” said Julie Anna Potts, President and CEO of the North American Meat Institute. “These witnesses join the Meat Institute in maintaining the beef and cattle markets are dynamic, with recent challenges being due to labor shortages and the COVID pandemic rather than market structure.”

    The Meat Institute submitted written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing called, “Beefing up Competition: Examining America’s Food Supply Chain.” Senate testimony may be found here.

    In addition to debunking claims about market concentration, the testimony includes important new analysis which shows that the beef market is rebounding:

    “Beef demand remains high: the total volume of beef sales in 2021 from January through mid-June remained more than 4 percent higher than the pre-pandemic levels over the same period in 2019. This increase in beef demand in 2020 happened while the packing sector’s ability to process cattle was experiencing operational constraints, and has continued into this year while labor availability has similarly affected the packing industry’s ability to operate at full capacity. Meanwhile, the supply of fed cattle remained large. In short, COVID-19 created a significant “kink in the chain” that took time to straighten.

    “Early in the pandemic the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) commissioned the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service and several distinguished agricultural economists to examine the impact COVID-19 was having and was expected to have on the beef cattle industry. That paper warned ‘the timeline for market recovery from COVID-19 is unknown, and cow-calf losses could expand into 2021 when the summer and fall 2020 calf crops would be marketed.’

    “The market is rebounding. This week Feeder Cattle futures reached contract highs for the August through March 2022 contracts. On Monday, July 26, the Feeder Cattle contract closed at its highest since March 2016. Live Cattle futures prices so far in July have averaged higher than the same month in 2017, 2018, and 2019, all pre-pandemic. This reflects a smaller supply of cattle, which according to USDA’s mid-year cattle inventory report released last week, is down 1 percent from last year. Also, it reflects the recovery in cattle processing capacity.”

    In the testimony, the Meat Institute also offers a primer on market fundamentals at all stages of production:

    “From ranch to the slaughter plant rail, live cattle typically change ownership two to three times. Cow-calf producers market their cattle to feeders, or to backgrounders who in turn move those cattle to feeders, who then market to packers. The price for cattle at any of those three most common points of transactions is a function of how many cattle are in each respective market segment. In other words, the price is determined by supply of cattle to sell from one segment and the demand for buying cattle by the next segment. That explains why each segment can experience different margins and why there is a futures contract for two types of cattle: feeder cattle and fed cattle. When any of those segments are out of balance, prices move, and the moves can be dramatic, as witnessed by the COVID-spurred retail beef demand, which represents the final segment of the entire pasture to plate value chain, and the COVID-imposed imbalance within various segments of the cattle sector.”

    In response to calls for more “transparency,” The Meat Institute’s testimony provides more information about mandatory price reporting and other requirements for packers to be transparent with industry data:

    “There is robust price discovery in the cattle and beef markets. Congress established and USDA administers the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act (LMR) program to facilitate open, transparent price discovery and provide all market participants, both large and small, with comparable levels of market information for slaughter cattle and beef, as well as other species.

    “Under LMR, packers must report to AMS daily the prices they pay to procure cattle, as well as other information, including slaughter data for cattle harvested during a specified time period and with net prices, actual weights, dressing percentages, percent of beef grading Choice, and price ranges, and then AMS publishes the anonymized data.

    “AMS publishes 24 daily and 20 weekly cattle reports each week. Weekly reports start Monday afternoon and end the next Monday morning. These reports cover time periods, regions, and activities and the data include actual cattle prices.

    “Further, packers report all original sale beef transactions in both volume and price through the Daily Boxed Beef Report. This data is reported twice daily, at 11:00 a.m. and at 3:00 p.m. Central Time. The morning report covers market activity since 1:30 p.m. of the prior business day until 9:30 a.m. of the current business day. The afternoon report is cumulative, including all market activity in the morning plus all additional transactions between 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., and is on the USDA DataMart website. The boxed beef report covers both individual beef item sales and beef cutout values and current volumes, both of which are derived from the individual beef item sales data.

    “Stepping back for a moment, it is unimaginable in virtually any other industry participants in a free market would be required to report such data on an on-going, daily basis, and that the data would then be published by the government for competitors and other market participants to view, analyze, and use as a basis for strategic decisions. And yet, despite all of the onerous, mandated reporting requirements already in place, some people claim there is no market transparency and there needs to be more price discovery. Where does it end?”

    For additional information about beef markets see the Meat Institute’s Facts about Common Meat Market Myths and the Meat Institute’s comments submitted earlier this week in response to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack’s request for comments on efforts to improve supply chains for the production of agricultural commodities and food products. The Meat Institute has several resources about beef markets here. And for more on the pandemic and its effect on the meat and poultry industry, go here.

    About North American Meat Institute

    The North American Meat Institute is a leading voice for the meat and poultry industry. The Meat Institute’s members process the vast majority of U.S. beef, pork, lamb, and poultry, as well as manufactures the equipment and ingredients needed to produce safe, high quality meat and poultry products.

  • Scientists Serve Up Vaccine Cocktail for Protecting Cattle from Disease

    Scientists with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) have developed a new experimental vaccine to protect cattle from the bacterium that causes Johne’s disease, Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP).

    Johne’s disease, also known as paratuberculosis, is a chronic intestinal disorder that can cause diarrhea, weight loss, poor health and sometimes death in afflicted cattle. In the United States, Johne’s disease is most prevalent in dairy herds, costing the industry more than $220 million annually in losses. The disease also affects other ruminant animals, including sheep, goats and deer.

    Rather than use the cells of live but weakened or dead MAP, as has been done with past commercial vaccine formulations, ARS microbiologists Judy Stabel and John Bannantine set their sights on four proteins from the bacterium, which they discovered from prior research to sequence and characterize its genome (or, genetic makeup).

    In preliminary trials, vaccinating mice with the proteins reduced bacterial colonization of the rodents’ intestinal walls and bacterial shedding in feces, a major route by which other hosts become infected. Cattle, for example, can become infected while grazing pasture where MAP-contaminated manure is located. Calves ingesting colostrum from an infected dam is another route of infection, noted Stabel, who along with Bannantine, is with the ARS National Animal Disease Center’s Infectious Bacterial Diseases Research Unit in Ames, Iowa.

    Encouraged by the results with mice, the researchers scaled-up their efforts, using standard laboratory procedures to produce the four proteins and combine them into a single, recombinant vaccine “cocktail” that could be administered to calves at doses of 200 or 400 micrograms.

    Throughout, the researchers strived to avoid shortcomings of past vaccine formulations that had been developed, including a tendency to trigger blemishes at the site of injection and interference with the accuracy of serological tests used to detect not only MAP, but also another closely related bacterial species that causes bovine tuberculosis.

    Trials with dairy calves, detailed in the April 2021 issue of the journal Vaccine, indicate the vaccine cocktail did not disappoint. In addition to rendering the young animals immune to the disease over the course of a year of monitoring, the formulation showed little to no cross-reactivity with serological tests for both Johne’s disease and bovine tuberculosis. Administering the vaccine cocktail also did not trigger blemishes at the injection site, Stabel reported—a potential benefit for animals raised for their meat and hides.

    The researchers note the need for additional efficacy trials and welcome collaboration with an industry partner to explore the patented vaccine cocktail’s commercial potential further.

    Microbiologist Judy Stabel evaluates the results of the interferon-gamma blood test to diagnose cows infected with M. avium subspecies paratuberculosis (photo by Peggy Greb).

    The Agricultural Research Service is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s chief scientific in-house research agency. Daily, ARS focuses on solutions to agricultural problems affecting America. Each dollar invested in agricultural research results in $17 of economic impact.

  • Piglets Pay the Price of Mom’s Heat Stress

    Pigs that experience heat stress while pregnant can predispose their offspring to health complications and diminished performance later in life.

    Piglets born to heat-stressed sows may carry the burden of their mom’s discomfort later in life in the form of health complications and diminished performance. Now, this so-called “in utero heat stress” may also hypersensitize the piglet’s immune system, potentially doing more harm than good to the young animals, a team of Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and university scientists has learned.

    Pigs are more susceptible to heat stress due to an inability to sweat. This places them at greater risk of health and production problems that can add up to millions of dollars annually in revenue losses to swine producers.

    Research has shown that pigs experiencing heat stress during pregnancy can predispose their offspring to complications later in life that can lead to diminished performance, including efficient feed use, growth rate and ultimately, pork production. However, less is known about how this heat stress affects their offspring’s innate immunity, or first-line defense against disease-causing bacteria and other pathogens, noted Jay S. Johnson, an animal scientist at the ARS Livestock Behavior Research Unit in West Lafayette, Indiana.

    To learn more, Johnson teamed with his ARS laboratory colleagues and scientists from the Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana; the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri.

    Following established animal care and welfare guidelines, the team evaluated two groups of piglets. The first group consisted of 16 piglets born to mothers exposed to stressful temperature cycles ranging from 79 to 97 degrees Fahrenheit during the first half of pregnancy. The second group of 16 were born to moms exposed to a “comfortable” 64 degrees Fahrenheit.

    A thermal image of a pig’s surface temperature.

    The researchers then simulated a pathogen attack on the piglets using lipopolysaccharide, a molecule found in the cell walls of some bacteria. Blood samples were drawn to monitor certain markers of the piglets’ innate immune response, including glucose, insulin, non-esterified fatty acids, cortisol (a stress hormone) and cytokines (markers of inflammation). These, along with white blood cell counts, were compared to a lipopolysaccharide-free group of piglets used as controls.

    Among their findings, reported in the December 2020 issue of the Journal of Animal Science, the researchers observed:

    • The core body temperatures of the in utero heat-stressed and non-stressed piglets given the lipopolysaccharide were about the same.
    • However, in utero heat-stressed piglets had higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol.
    • These same piglets also had greater cytokine (markers of inflammation) levels in response to the lipopolysaccharide challenge, which provided evidence of a hypersensitive immune response. The researchers worry this could translate to greater risk of pain, infection, organ failure and other complications in such piglets under real-world production systems.

    Johnson said their research dovetails with increasing concern over the potential impacts of global climate change on swine welfare and management—especially in regions of the world prone to frequent or prolonged drought and heat waves.

    With support from USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the team is also taking a genomic approach to preempting the effects of in utero heat stress on piglets. Of particular interest is using genomic markers to flag traits for improved heat tolerance in sows used for breeding.

    “To achieve this goal, we are partnering with two major swine breeding companies,” Johnson said. “Our hope is that completion of this project will provide swine producers with a cost-effective strategy to reduce the negative impact of in utero heat stress on swine in the United States and globally.”

    The Agricultural Research Service is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s chief scientific in-house research agency. Daily, ARS focuses on solutions to agricultural problems affecting America. Each dollar invested in agricultural research results in $17 of economic impact.

  • Genome to Phenome: ARS Research in Precision Agriculture

    How do you build a better dairy cow? Use a tool designed to study the human genome, of course.

    Working alongside international research partners in the Agricultural Genome to Phenome Initiative (AG2PI), Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists are using technology to meet the challenges of the increasing global population and ever-changing environmental stressors. The goal of AG2PI is to better understand how genetics and the environment together influence the performance of plants and animals. This is easier said than done because regional environmental differences can vary the results of seeds from the same plant.

    “We know that nature (genotype) and nurture (environment and management) are both important factors in agricultural production (phenotype),” said Caird Rexroad III, ARS national program leader for animal production and protection in Beltsville, MD. “We need to better understand exactly how they affect production to develop optimal production strategies that are tailored to the diversity of genetics and environments that make up U.S. and world agriculture.”

    To achieve this goal, AG2PI reaches across kingdoms (scientific classifications) to examine genome-to-phenome challenges. Scientists in the various specialties work together to identify and fill in similar research gaps, access advanced cyberinfrastructure, and share data and new technology, such as sensors, robotics, and imaging platforms.

    “AG2PI is a community of scientists who share a passion for agricultural research and developing technologies that improve our ability to produce a safe, abundant, healthy, and affordable food supply,” Rexroad said. “This platform is inclusive of many scientific disciplines that may not have interacted in the past, such as breeders, engineers, economists, social scientists, etc., and works by sharing ideas, providing trainings on state-of-the-art technologies, and enhancing communication and collaboration.”

    One example of how ARS scientists used AG2PI to avoid research “stovepipes” (the term used to describe how one group may isolate its information from other unrelated groups) involves the international research to improve dairy cattle.

    “The Genome-to-Phenome Initiative began for us in 2007,” said Curt Van Tassell, research geneticist at the ARS Animal Genomics and Improvements Laboratory in Beltsville. According to Van Tassell, the landmark study used existing technology from one scientific discipline and applied it to another; in this case, technology was developed for the human genome and adapted for use in the cow by designing a DNA chip to characterize the whole genome of the cow.

    “We worked closely with dairy genetics industry partners to implement genome-enabled genetic improvement with dramatic impact in the dairy industry,” Van Tassell said. “With the help of our partners, we revolutionized the world of genetic improvement in livestock in one fell swoop.”

    While AG2PI is not in itself a scientific project, it supports all agricultural research that will benefit farmers, ranchers, and consumers, Rexroad said. “Farmers and ranchers will have access to genetics and management practices that will increase yields, improve crop and animal health and well-being, increase production efficiency or product value, and improve sustainability in the production system,” he said.

    “AG2PI is all about agricultural research, and it is inclusive of many scientific disciplines, and that ties into the ARS goal of finding solutions to agricultural problems that affect Americans everyday from farm to table,” Rexroad said. – By Scott Elliott, USDA-ARS Office of Communications

  • Feeding Cattle Seaweed Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions 82 Percent

    A bit of seaweed in cattle feed could reduce methane emissions from beef cattle as much as 82 percent, according to new findings from researchers at the University of California, Davis. The results, published today (March 17) in the journal PLOS ONE, could pave the way for the sustainable production of livestock throughout the world.

    “We now have sound evidence that seaweed in cattle diet is effective at reducing greenhouse gases and that the efficacy does not diminish over time,” said Ermias Kebreab, professor and Sesnon Endowed Chair of the Department of Animal Science and director of the World Food Center. Kebreab conducted the study along with his Ph.D. graduate student Breanna Roque.

    “This could help farmers sustainably produce the beef and dairy products we need to feed the world,” Roque added.

    Over the course of five months last summer, Kebreab and Roque added scant amounts of seaweed to the diet of 21 beef cattle and tracked their weight gain and methane emissions. Cattle that consumed doses of about 80 grams (3 ounces) of seaweed gained as much weight as their herd mates while burping out 82 percent less methane into the atmosphere. Kebreab and Roque are building on their earlier work with dairy cattle, which was the world’s first experiment reported that used seaweed in cattle.

    An open-air contraption measures the methane in the cows’ breath as they eat a treat. UC Davis Professor Ermias Kebreab’s research has found a small amount of seaweed fed to dairy cows can reduce methane emissions (Photo: Gregory Urquiaga/UC Davis).

    Less Gassy, More Sustainable

    Greenhouse gases are a major cause of climate change, and methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Agriculture is responsible for 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., and half of those come from cows and other ruminant animals that belch methane and other gases throughout the day as they digest forages like grass and hay.

    Since cattle are the top agricultural source of greenhouse gases, many have suggested people eat less meat to help address climate change. Kebreab looks to cattle nutrition instead.

    “Only a tiny fraction of the earth is fit for crop production,” Kebreab explained. “Much more land is suitable only for grazing, so livestock plays a vital role in feeding the 10 billion people who will soon inhabit the planet. Since much of livestock’s methane emissions come from the animal itself, nutrition plays a big role in finding solutions.”

    In 2018, Kebreab and Roque were able to reduce methane emissions from dairy cows by over 50 percent by supplementing their diet with seaweed for two weeks. The seaweed inhibits an enzyme in the cow’s digestive system that contributes to methane production.

    In the new study, Kebreab and Roque tested whether those reductions were sustainable over time by feeding cows a touch of seaweed every day for five months, from the time they were young on the range through their later days on the feed lot.

    Four times a day, the cows ate a snack from an open-air contraption that measured the methane in their breath. The results were clear. Cattle that consumed seaweed emitted much less methane, and there was no drop-off in efficacy over time.

    This red seaweed, asparagopsis taxiformis, was mixed with the steer’s normal feed in order to reduce methane emissions from the cattle (Timothy McConville/UC Davis).

    Next Steps

    Results from a taste-test panel found no differences in the flavor of the beef from seaweed-fed steers compared with a control group. Similar tests with dairy cattle showed that seaweed had no impact on the taste of milk.

    Also, scientists are studying ways to farm the type of seaweed — Asparagopsis taxiformis — that Kebreab’s team used in the tests. There is not enough of it in the wild for broad application.

    This steer at the UC Davis beef barn was fed a small amount of seaweed with his feed to reduce methane emissions (Breanna Roque/UC Davis).

    Another challenge: How do ranchers provide seaweed supplements to grazing cattle on the open range? That’s the subject of Kebreab’s next study.

    Kebreab and Roque collaborated with a federal scientific agency in Australia called the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, James Cook University in Australia, Meat and Livestock Australia, and Blue Ocean Barns, a startup company that sources, processes, markets and certifies seaweed-based additives to cattle feed. Kebreab is a scientific adviser to Blue Ocean Barns.

    “There is more work to be done, but we are very encouraged by these results,” Roque said. “We now have a clear answer to the question of whether seaweed supplements can sustainably reduce livestock methane emissions and its long term effectiveness.”

    Support for the research comes from Blue Ocean Barns, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Grantham Foundation. — By Diane Nelson, College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, UC Davis

  • UFCW, Meat Institute Call on All 50 States to Prioritize Vaccination of Frontline Meat & Poultry Workers

    Today, the nation’s largest union for meatpacking workers and the association representing meat producers joined forces to urge all 50 U.S. governors to urgently prioritize COVID-19 vaccination for frontline meat and poultry workers across the United States, in accordance with official Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance.

    In a new joint letter to governors, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and the North American Meat Institute (Meat Institute) emphasized that quickly vaccinating the sector’s diverse workforce of some 500,000 employees across the country will maximize health benefits, especially in rural communities that often have limited health services, while keeping Americans’ refrigerators full and our farm economy working. Click here to read the full letter to governors.

    COVID-19 vaccinations can, in many cases, be administered through meat and poultry facilities’ existing health programs and staff. UFCW and the Meat Institute committed to assist employees with information and access to off-site vaccination, if needed, and to support vaccine information and education efforts.

    Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts: “Health authorities around the world, employers, unions, and civil rights groups all agree – high priority access to vaccines is critical for the long-term safety of essential frontline meat and poultry workers who have kept Americans’ refrigerators full and our farm economy working throughout this crisis.” 

    UFCW International Vice President Mark Lauritsen: “America’s meatpacking workers are bravely serving on the frontlines so that millions of families can put food on the table during this crisis. To keep our nation’s food supply secure as the pandemic worsens, we need strong action now from our elected leaders to protect these essential workers in meatpacking plants. As the largest union for America’s meatpacking workers, UFCW is joining industry leaders today in a unified call for governors in all 50 states to immediately prioritize meatpacking workers for access to the COVID vaccine. American lives are at stake and these courageous men and women on the frontlines cannot wait any longer.”

    Prioritizing vaccines for frontline meat and poultry workers will build on more than $1.5 billion in comprehensive COVID-19 prevention measures the industry has implemented since the spring. 

    Average case rates amongst meat and poultry workers in November were more than 8 times lower than in the general U.S. population. Further details about COVID-19 health and safety measures and COVID-19 relief contributions are available here.  

    ###

    UFCW International is the largest private sector union in the United States. UFCW International represents 1.3 million professionals and their families in healthcare, grocery stores, meatpacking, food processing, retail shops and other industries. Our members serve our communities in all 50 states, Canada and Puerto Rico. Learn more about the UFCW at  ufcw.org. 

    The North American Meat Institute is the leading voice for the meat and poultry industry.  The Meat Institute’s members process the vast majority of U.S. beef, pork, lamb, and poultry, as well as manufacture the equipment and ingredients needed to produce the safest and highest quality meat and poultry products. Learn more about at meatinstitute.org

  • Surging Feed Prices Will Challenge the U.S. Animal Protein Sector’s Recovery

    The U.S. animal protein sector is expected to face a 12% increase in feed costs in 2021, which will mark the highest year-over-year inflation since 2011. With corn futures above $4 per bushel and soybean meal futures around $350 per ton, cattle feeders, hog producers and chicken producers will pay higher prices for feed than they have in many years, according to a new report from CoBank’s Knowledge Exchange division.

    The higher feed costs come at a challenging time, as meat and poultry industry margins have been pressured by weak prices in 2020 due to COVID-19. Average producer margins for cattle, hogs and broilers fell into negative territory this year after the pandemic disrupted foodservice demand and drove widespread meat plant slowdowns and shutdowns.

    “Most producers lost money during the year, but that’s been in the midst of some of the most extreme volatility in global food demand anyone has ever seen,” said Will Sawyer, lead animal protein economist with CoBank. “Industry margins are far better today than they were in the spring, but there will be tighter windows of opportunity for the livestock and poultry sectors to profit in 2021.”

    Much of the increase in feed prices is being driven by Chinese demand for grain as it rebuilds its hog herd and overall animal protein supply after African Swine Fever (ASF) ravaged its herd the last couple of years. The USDA forecasts China’s corn imports to more than triple in the 2020-21 crop year, with much of that increase coming from the U.S.

    The shortage of animal protein in China has drawn massive trade flows towards the world’s most populous country. Since China lost more than half of its hog herd beginning in late 2018, it has been the largest importer globally of beef and pork, and nearly surpassed Japan in poultry imports. While China’s protein imports are expected to decline a modest 3% in 2021, CoBank economists anticipate those imports will fall more sharply in the years to follow.

    For most of the last decade, feed costs have generally been a tailwind for U.S. meat and poultry producers and have been lower than the year before for six of the last eight years. In 2021, U.S. hog producers are expected to face the highest level of feed cost inflation at 14%, closely followed by cattle feeders at 13%, and chicken producers at 11%. The impact of feed costs varies by species for several reasons, such as life cycle, feed ration, and components of other feed costs.

    While feed costs will be more of a burden for the animal protein industry than in previous years, meat and poultry supply growth is expected to slow in 2021. USDA forecasts 0.8% overall growth for U.S. beef, pork, and chicken production in the coming year, the slowest rate of supply growth since 2014. That leaves reason for some level of optimism that higher feed costs can be offset by higher prices.

    “While animal protein and poultry producers face a higher cost structure in 2021, margin opportunity will increasingly come from revenue rather than cost,” said Sawyer. “And fortunately, there are positive signs that producers and processors may benefit from higher beef, pork, and poultry prices to cushion higher feed costs.”

    Sawyer points to the emergence of COVID-19 vaccines as a positive first step towards the eventual normalization of food and animal protein consumption patterns, including the return of foodservice industry demand. Additionally, changes by major meat and poultry processors greatly reduce the probability of a repeat experience seen in April and May 2020.

    CoBank estimates U.S. meat and poultry companies have invested more than $2.5 billion this year in direct COVID-19 expenses to ensure safe working conditions and reduced risk of plant shutdowns. With plants operating at a more normal level, absenteeism levels improving, and far fewer workers falling ill, the financial impact of COVID-19 looks to be far less in the coming year than what the industry has endured in 2020.

    Read the full report, Surging Feed Prices to Test U.S. Animal Protein’s Recovery.

    About CoBank

    CoBank is a $148 billion cooperative bank serving vital industries across rural America. The bank provides loans, leases, export financing and other financial services to agribusinesses and rural power, water and communications providers in all 50 states. The bank also provides wholesale loans and other financial services to affiliated Farm Credit associations serving more than 70,000 farmers, ranchers and other rural borrowers in 23 states around the country.

    CoBank is a member of the Farm Credit System, a nationwide network of banks and retail lending associations chartered to support the borrowing needs of U.S. agriculture, rural infrastructure and rural communities. Headquartered outside Denver, Colorado, CoBank serves customers from regional banking centers across the U.S. and also maintains an international representative office in Singapore.

  • Model Filter System Removes Antibiotics from Wastewater

    A model for an economical filter system that can remove antibiotics from wastewater has been designed by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and University of California-Riverside (UCR) collaborators.

    Microbiologist Mark Ibekwe with the ARS Agricultural Water Efficiency and Salinity Research Unit in Riverside, California, and UCR soil chemist Daniel Ashworth constructed the prototype system using four layers of natural materials: gravel, sand, soil, and biochar in a column 50-cm tall and 12-cm diameter.

    They used the laboratory-scale model to remove four antibiotics: amoxicillin, cefalexin, sulfadiazine, and tetracycline at various levels of efficiency. These four antibiotics were selected for testing in the scale model because they are among the most common in wastewater treatment plant effluent. Conventional wastewater treatment plant systems are relatively effective at removing nutrients and bacteria but can be somewhat ineffective at removing antibiotics.

    The effectiveness of the laboratory-scale system varied with the antibiotic being evaluated. It successfully removed 98 percent of the tetracycline, followed by 91 percent of cefalexin, 81 percent of amoxicillin and 51 percent of sulfadiazine. The antibiotics had initial concentrations of 10 ppb, comparable to levels that have been seen in municipal wastewater.

    Amoxicillin and cefalexin removal were largely controlled by chemical degradation in the gravel layer, while sulfadiazine was largely removed by a combination of chemical and microbial degradation in the soil mixed with a biochar layer. Tetracycline was primarily removed by chemical reactions with water (hydrolysis) in the gravel layer.

    “These results show the importance of using layers of different materials to target different antibiotics rather than expecting one layer and material will be able to do the job.” said Ibekwe.

    Increasing the time it takes for the water stream to pass through the column also improved removal efficiency, especially for amoxicillin and cefalexin. In this design, the simulated wastewater enters at the bottom of the column to saturate the bottom layer and then is pumped up through the column to flow out through the top.

    A “full-size” scale-upped version of the researchers’ filter system—one that might serve a small-town wastewater treatment plant—would be about 2 meters tall and 50 cm in diameter, according to Ashworth. Of course, you could use multiples of the columns to serve a larger need and the footprint would still be relatively small, which is one of the powerful features of this system, Ashworth added.

    There are some existing systems that can remove antibiotics from wastewater, but these tend to be very expensive or require much more space. This research was published in the Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering.

    The Agricultural Research Service is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s chief scientific in-house research agency. Daily, ARS focuses on solutions to agricultural problems affecting America. Each dollar invested in agricultural research results in $20 of economic impact.

  • Strong Relationships with Elected Officials, Key in Protecting Future of Dairy

    The Animal Agriculture Alliance released their report outlining observations from the “Taking Action for Animals Conference” (TAFA),” which took place September 19-20th. The event, featuring speakers from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Humane Society International and the Humane Society Legislative Fund, stressed the need for attendees who pride themselves as animal activists to become highly engaged in changing current legislation throughout the U.S. by working directly with legislators to pursue “animal-friendly” legislation in federal, state, and local government levels.

    Attendees were urged by HSUS leadership to become one of the “go-to people” in the legislator’s district, who he or she will reach out to when they have a question about animal protection.

    HSUS is deceitful, preying on emotions and the good intentions of Americans to fund the HSUS agenda of ending animal agriculture and putting farmers out of business. According to HumaneWatch, “HSUS raises millions of dollars from American animal lovers through manipulative advertising… However, HSUS doesn’t run a single pet shelter and only gives 1 percent of the money it raises to pet shelters while sucking money out of local communities. HSUS’s own donors and local shelters feel wronged.”

    Animal activists, who intend to end animal agriculture, are using this new strategy to position themselves to provide direct input on the policies which regulate how you operate your dairy operation. It is more important than ever to ensure you have a strong relationship with your officials at all levels of government, regardless of their political affiliation. Your legislator must hear directly from you to better understand the care you provide to your animals, the methods that keep your employees and the environment safe, and the direct contribution your hard work provides to the economy and to your local community. We cannot let those who wish to end animal agriculture have a stronger voice than us regarding agriculture legislative policy.

    These same activists are blaming animal agriculture for the pandemic and destroying the “livability” of our planet. While activists accuse farmers of ruining the environment, dairy and livestock producers are hard at work growing and raising quality, affordable and safe food to nourish families across the nation. There are many who do not know where their next meal will come from and who do not have the luxury of excluding affordable complete protein sources like dairy and meat.

    Find out who your federal and state legislators are below. Take a minute and send an e-mail, tell them about what you do and ask them to contact you anytime with questions they may have. Monthly emails and repetitive contact are critical to building and maintaining relationships with your legislators. YOU need to be their resource on information regarding the dairy industry.

    Find Your Elected Officials Here

    Maintaining a close dialogue with your representatives is key in influencing the narrative and ensuring ideological beliefs are not mistaken for scientific facts. — By Laurie Fischer, CEO of the American Dairy Coalition