RE: Cheaper Feed Comes too Late for Some Cattlefeeders – It wasn’t the drought that put cattle feeders out of business

Mr. Duff has experienced all the risks inherent in the business, from weather risks, including killing winter blizzards; times of low prices for cattle and high feed costs. What Mr. Duff and the other thirty-five thousand feeding operations that have gone out of business also mostly remember is when there was a fair and competitive market. Thirty some years ago the market worked. Risk, along with capital and good management was rewarded. Today everything on the supply side of Walmart is a cost to be reduced. No one within the Walmart (and other multinational corporations) supply chain will survive their crushing market power without antitrust law enforcement. The food monopoly must be broken.

image005

The Obama administration promised they would fix the market – they lacked the courage

It would help the remaining few survive, or at least understand, if the real reason for the demise of cattle producers was told.

Mike Callicrate


August 13, 2013 By Jesse Newman

Great Plains Feedlot Operators, Battered by Losses, Are Closing at a Rising Rate

SCOTT CITY, Kan.— David Duff, a cattleman nearly all his life, is selling the last of his steers and heifers this summer, a casualty of a drought that has extended into a third year in Kansas, Texas and other major cattle-producing states.

image001

Mr. Duff and other feedlot operators, who fatten cattle for slaughter, have been squeezed by rising prices for young cattle and high feed costs that have outstripped prices paid to them by meatpackers. U.S. beef consumption last year was 15% lower per person than 10 years earlier, as declining production and growing international demand have pushed up retail prices.

David Duff, part owner of Beef Belt Feeders, stands in front of an empty cattle pen. The feedlot, which will soon close, is the latest casualty of a record drought that is roiling the beef industry.
Even though the price of corn, a main feed ingredient, has fallen this year from last year’s record highs as more-normal weather returned to the Midwest corn belt, it comes too late for many feedlot operators struggling to stay solvent.

About 2,000 of the nation’s 77,120 feedlots exited the business last year, up from 20 a year earlier, federal figures show. Mr. Duff is expected to be one of many who close their operations this year as losses mount.

“It’s the end of an era,” said the 69-year-old Mr. Duff, wearing jeans and scuffed cowboy boots one recent morning at his western Kansas feedlot. “There have been four generations of Duffs at Beef Belt Feeders. Makes you kind of sad to close up shop.”

Running a feedlot has long been risky because of volatility in cattle and grain prices. Participants in the $35 billion-a-year feedlot industry buy roughly one-year-old cattle that weigh about 750 pounds and feed them a corn-heavy diet for as long as six months. When the animals are ready to be sold to slaughterhouses, they weigh as much as 1,400 pounds.

Ranchers across the High Plains have culled their herds of young cattle, which are sold to feedlots, to the lowest levels in six decades as prolonged drought has parched grazing pastures. That has shifted the industry north, where there has been more rain.

Now the woes are moving up the food chain, with feedlot operators from Texas to Nebraska bearing the brunt of dwindling supplies. Last year, feedlots with 1,000 or more cattle sold 24.95 million animals, down from 28.29 million in 2000.

Drought Dries Up Profits at Plains Feedlots

A prolonged drought in the southern Great Plains has hit ranchers hard and now is moving up the food chain.

Cattle in a pen at Grant County Feeders.

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

On average, U.S. feedlots have lost money for a record 27 straight months, said Rich Nelson, chief strategist with Allendale Inc., an agricultural-advisory company in McHenry, Ill. The losses equal an average of about $141 per head of cattle over that period, he said.

“This is probably the worst two-year period we’ve had in the history of the High Plains cattle feeding industry,” said Jim Robb, director of the Livestock Marketing Information Center, an industry group in Denver.

The number of feedlot operators has fallen 20% in the past decade. The biggest impact has been on smaller operators with fewer than 1,000 cattle. “The industry is overbuilt now,” said Jerry Bohn, general manager of Pratt Feeders, which recently closed one of its four feedlots. “There are too many feed yards chasing too few cattle.”

Ranchers won’t be able to expand their herds until the drought subsides. Even once the dry weather eases, it will take years to rebuild herds.

During last summer’s drought, corn prices surged to record highs of more than $8 a bushel. This year’s wet weather in the Midwest helped push down corn-futures prices last week to roughly $4.65 a bushel in anticipation of a big fall harvest. On Monday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture tempered its estimate for the size of this year’s crop, while maintaining predictions for a record harvest. Still, lower corn prices alone won’t be sufficient to rescue some feedlots.

A recent decision by meat giant Tyson Foods Inc. to stop buying cattle fed with a popular weight-gain supplement, Zilmax, could further strain balance sheets if feedlot operators have to buy more corn to fatten cattle longer, or sell animals that weigh less.

Losing feedlots, many of which are locally owned, is tough on the region’s small towns, said Katie Eisenhour, executive director of the Scott County Development Committee. “To have them in the community, that’s the difference between thriving and just surviving,” she said. Scott County, which lost its distinction as the leading cattle-feeding county in Kansas over a decade ago, has struggled to maintain its population of roughly 5,000.

Mr. Duff and his father opened their business in 1969, just as feedlots were migrating west from the central Midwest. Thanks to a drier climate—more amenable to raising cattle—the advent of irrigated cornfields and the arrival of meatpackers seeking steady supplies, the industry enjoyed a boom period through the 1970s. “It was like a gold rush,” Mr. Duff said.

At its peak, his business fed more than 10,000 cattle and bison, a lucrative niche animal that helped keep the company profitable for years. On a recent day, Mr. Duff’s feedlot sat largely empty, the cattle pens swept of manure and feeding troughs cleared of grain. Only a few hundred cattle and a herd of bison remained, their shaggy, hulking figures towering on the horizon.

Last year, Mr. Duff lost more than $200 per head of cattle, compared with profits of as much as $150 per animal in better years. By the end of the summer, the cattle and most employees, who once totaled 12 full-timers, will be gone. “It was heartbreaking to let people go after 20 or 25 years,” he said. “It’s like there’s been a death in the family.”

Mr. Duff has experienced all the risks inherent in the business, from weather risks, including killing winter blizzards; times of low prices for cattle and high feed costs. What Mr. Duff and the other thirty-five thousand feeding operations that have gone out of business also mostly remember is when there was a fair and competitive market. Thirty some years ago the market worked. Risk, along with capital and good management was rewarded. Today everything on the supply side of Walmart is a cost to be reduced. No one within the Walmart (and other multinational corporations) supply chain will survive their crushing market power without antitrust law enforcement. The food monopoly must be broken.

Copyright ©2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Posted in General Advocacy | Leave a comment

Tyson Foods bans using cattle with Zilmax growth hormone

AirTalk with Larry Mantle for August 12, 2013

Ambersky235/Flickr

Ambersky235/Flickr

Listen to interview:

Tyson foods said it will no longer buy cattle fed Zilmax, a growth-inducing drug. What was the company’s motivation for the decision?

Last Thursday market traders noticed cattle prices rise sharply. It was in response to news that Tyson Foods – a major meatpacker – quietly had sent letters to cattle feedlots indicating Tyson would no longer buy cows fed Zilmax. That’s a supplement designed to bulk up cows before slaughter.

Tyson cited the health of animals as reason for the change. They said experts have anecdotal evidence of cows becoming lame as a side effect of the growth-inducing drug. Such supplements are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If market prices are up on the news, consumers can expect supermarket prices to rise, too. Industry watchers are calling this a game-changer. Some also question Tyson’s true motivation.

Is it because they’re trying to gain access to foreign markets that ban growth hormones? Is the export market becoming more important than domestic shoppers for agriculture companies? Will other meatpackers follow suit? Will feedlots be forced to halt using Zilmax and similar drugs?

Guests:
Mike Callicrate , Cattle producer based in St. Francis, Kansas; Proprietor of Ranch Foods Direct which markets farm to table beef

Tom Talbot, Cattle producer and Veterinarian from Bishop, California; Past Chairman, Cattle Health and Well-Being Committee, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Dennis Smith, Livestock Industry Analyst and Commodities Broker, Archer Financial Services

Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.scpr.org/.

Posted in General Advocacy, Zilmax | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Did Tyson Ban Doping Cows With Zilmax To Boost Foreign Sales?

feedlot
China, Russia and many countries in the European Union have banned drugs still allowed in the U.S.
[audio:http://nobullmikecall.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/NPR_Callicrate_Zilmax.mp3]

by: All Things Considered | Peggy Lowe

Tyson Foods said it will stop using the controversial drug, which fattens cattle, because of potential animal welfare issues. But many in the beef industry say the company is just interested in boosting exports to countries like China and the European Union, where growth-promoting drugs for meat production are banned.

Tyson Foods Inc. announced this week that it would soon suspend purchases of cattle that had been treated with a controversial drug, citing animal welfare concerns.

But many in the industry wonder if the real reason is the battle for sales in other countries, where certain drugs that make livestock grow faster are banned.

“I really do think this is more of a marketing ploy from Tyson to raise some awareness so they can garner some export business from our overseas export partners,” says Dan Norcini, an independent commodities broker.

Surprising many in the industry, Tyson sent a letter to cattle feeders saying that as of Sept. 6, the company would no longer buy animals that had been treated with Zilmax, a drug that bulks up cattle by as much as 30 pounds just before slaughter. Tyson controls 26 percent of the U.S. beef supply and is the first company in the industry to make this change.

The letter cited recent reports of cattle being delivered for processing that couldn’t walk or move.

“We do not know the specific cause of these problems, but some animal health experts have suggested that the use of the feed supplement Zilmax, also known as zilpaterol, is one possible cause,” the letter said, adding that it wasn’t a food safety issue.

The company that manufactures Zilmax, Merck Animal Health, issued a statement saying the product is safe.

“We are surprised by Tyson’s letter,” the statement said. “We are confident that, based on all of the available data on Zilmax, the experience reported by Tyson is not attributable to Zilmax.”

Zilmax, approved by the FDA for use in livestock, is a beta-agonist and acts as a steroid, turning fat into muscle. As the Chronicle of Higher Education reported in 2012, the drug can make meat tough and tasteless. But new reports have surfaced recently suggesting that cattle are growing so large — up to 1,300 pounds — that they can’t walk.

Lilly Callaway, an animal scientist who works for JBS, the largest beef-producing company in the world, told a meeting of cattle producers in Denver this week that her company is seeing increasing reports of animals fed beta-agonists as stressed.

“Truck drivers have indicated that there is a difference between loading cattle depending on the beta-agonist status of the diet,” she told Feedstuffs, a weekly agribusiness newspaper. “Our plants have indicated that particular lots of cattle are showing up as ‘tender-footed’ — they do not want to move, seem lethargic and stiff, and have no energy.”

Mike Callicrate, a Kansas cattle rancher and president of the Organization for Competitive Markets, a small group of beef producers fighting consolidation of the industry, says he wasn’t surprised by Tyson’s move. Consumers are growing increasingly aware of how their food is produced, he says, and they don’t like what the use of what he calls “performance-enhancing drugs” to dope livestock.

“The Lance Armstrong, baseball-player type of compounds are precisely the same compounds being used in livestock production,” he says. “We have killed our export markets with the use of all these growth-promoting, growth-enhancing, performance-enhancing type drugs.”

China, Russia and many countries in the European Union have banned the use of these drugs in meat production. In May, Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the world, announced it would cut in half its purchase of animals raised with a similar drug, ractopamine. Just a week later, Smithfield announced its sale to a Chinese company.

Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food and Water Watch in Washington, D.C., says she hopes that large companies’ barring the use of such drugs will become a trend.

“It’s a little bit unfortunate that it takes other countries having good standards to make an improvement in the U.S. marketplace,” she said, “but at this point we’ll take what we can get, I think, when it comes to how we look at the drugs that are allowed to be given to food animals.”

But not everyone is happy about Tyson’s decision. The last few years have been tough on cattle ranchers and farmers. They’ve suffered through drought drying up their hay and grass, then watched as that weather killed off corn and sent feed prices sky high.

Norcini, the commodities broker, says Zilmax was a godsend to producers, allowing them to feed the cattle less and get a better price thanks to the added pounds. He thinks Tyson is taking a big risk.

“They may appease or they may keep some people happy in … the animal rights front. They may gain some followers and some accolades from that,” he says. “But I think the cattle industry as a whole is not going to look at this particularly in a good light.”

Meanwhile, Lovera and others wonder if Tyson is simply sending a message to all those countries now negotiating two large trade agreements with the U.S.

“This stuff is front and center in these trade negotiations so I just think it’s really interesting to see a big player like this volunteer some change, probably to make export markets happy,” she says.

Peggy Lowe is a reporter for Harvest Public Media, a public radio reporting collaboration that focuses on agriculture and food production.

Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.


9News.com Denver – Tyson will no longer buy cattle with controversial supplement
Screen Shot 2013-08-12 at 6.32.21 AM
WATCH VIDEO

KUSA – One of the country’s largest beef processors says it will no longer buy cattle with a supplement called Zilmax. It’s a move that could send beef prices higher.

Beef prices were already rising because ranchers sold off a lot of cattle during last year’s dry weather.

That has left cattle populations at their lowest level since 1952.

The Wall street Journal reports cattle futures surged on news that Tyson Foods will stop accepting cattle fed with Zilmax starting next month.

Zilmax is a “beta-agonist.” It produces lean muscle in cattle and hogs instead of fat.

Without it, some experts say it’ll take more corn to feed cattle to produce the same amount of beef.

Tyson says the decision had nothing to do with food safety but animal welfare concerns. Tyson says some animals recently arrived at processing centers that couldn’t move.

“I think it’s absolutely great news. It’s great news for our beef industry, because Zilmax not only is detrimental from an animal welfare perspective, but it also lowers meat quality,” said Mike Callicrate, a Colorado Springs rancher and animal welfare activist.

He applauds Tyson’s decision and says he hopes other beef processors will follow suit.

(KUSA-TV © 2013 Multimedia Holdings Corporation)



October 19, 2012: “I really want to talk about Zilmax” – Mike Callicrate


View Full Video and Related Post:
Edible Education 103: The Politics and Economics of Meat by Mike Callicrate and Bob Martin with Michael Pollan at UC Berkeley

Posted in General Advocacy, HSUS, Zilmax | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obituary: The Market Is Dead 1921-2013

competitivemarketsFuneral services will be held August 9th, 2013, in Kansas City, MO.

It is with deepest regrets we announce that the market, age 92, passed away after a long illness. This was a terrible loss to livelihoods, rural communities and consumer choice. Survivors include a few farmers and ranchers, once symbols of free enterprise and economic freedom, who are now sharecroppers and serfs under the heel of concentrated and abusive economic power.

The market was reborn in 1921 with passage of the anti-monopoly Packers and Stockyards Act, but suffered from weak enforcement almost from the beginning. The last 30 years of no-rules-biggest-cheater-wins left us with only the illusion of a marketplace. Everything from poultry to potatoes, cauliflower to bucket-calves is now under the control of a few multinational corporations. Wealth has never been so concentrated in the hands of so few. Markets today are a fantasy – like drinking from an empty cup at a child’s tea party – purely pretend.

Anyone familiar with the days of the robber barons and the meat packing Jungle knew the end was near for competitive markets as they watched history repeat itself: “They were a gigantic combination of capital, which had crushed all opposition, and overthrown the laws of the land, and was preying upon the people.” Sinclair continued: “They own not merely the labor of society, they have bought the governments; and everywhere they use their raped and stolen power to entrench themselves in their privileges, to dig wider and deeper the channels through which the river of profits flows to them!”

More than 35 years ago, the market for poultry was stolen by vertical integration– unfair and abusive contracts forced farmers out of business or into debtor serfdom. Hog farmers saw their way of life slaughtered along with their pigs in 1998 when the big pork machine drove hog prices to eight cents per pound. Hog farmers either quit or went to work as low-paid labor in inhumane and environmentally destructive hog factories. Last to go, the cattle market was dealt a near fatal blow when the 2006 corporately controlled Supreme Court refused to hear the cattlemen’s case for fair markets. A flicker of hope returned during the 2010 antitrust hearings, but the big packers managed to gut the new rules of any intent to restore competition, ending all hope of a market revival.

We should have known something so essential to the lives and welfare of the masses shouldn’t be controlled by a handful of lawless companies cooperating to maximize their profit. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned in1941, “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. But we cannot have both.”

Please join us on August 9th in Kansas City for the Organization for Competitive Markets annual meeting. We will spend a little time discussing what brought the market to its untimely end and then begin developing plans for the birth of a new marketplace that serves all of society, not just a few.

Posted in General Advocacy | Tagged , | 1 Comment

The Ethics of Eating: Why Eating is a Moral Act – 2013 Catholic Media Conference Presentation

Eating is a moral act because it is a human act, and human acts can be morally evaluated. As we produce less of our own food in our communities, we have become disconnected from our food supply – a food supply that increasingly places short-term profit above all else.

Posted in General Advocacy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment