Dairy farmers, perhaps waiting to take advantage of a new tax year, sent 10,000 more cows to slaughter in January this year than in December 2015, the United States Department of Agriculture reported this afternoon.
On a year-over-year basis, dairy farmers culled 9,900 cows fewer in January 2016 than they did in January 2015. That’s a 3.6% decrease.What’s more amazing is that January 2016 had one less business day than December 2015, so on a daily basis, cow culling was actually up 9%.
The raw culling numbers: January 2016—265,500; December 2015—255,400; January 2015—275,400.
Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University extension livestock marketing specialist
The U.S. and Mexican cattle and beef industries continue to integrate, building on a long history of trade between the two countries. Mexico has exported feeder cattle to the U.S. for more than a century and continues to do so today.
After increasing in the mid-1980s, U.S. imports of Mexican cattle have averaged 1.08 million head for the last 30 years. In the most recent ten years, the average has been slightly higher at 1.14 million head per year. Mexican cattle have added an average of 2.9 percent annually to the U.S. calf crop for the past 30 years, with the percentage slightly higher in recent years as U.S. cattle inventories have declined.
In 2015, imports of Mexican cattle were 1.15 million head, up 3.5 percent year over year and just slightly higher than the ten year average. Imports dropped sharply at the end of 2015, with November down 29.7 percent and December down 36.4 percent compared to the same months one year earlier.
This decrease in imports of Mexican cattle at the end of 2015 no doubt reflects lower U.S. cattle prices but also likely is a result of tight cattle supplies in Mexico. Lower U.S. cattle prices reduce the incentive to export cattle from Mexico but this is partially offset by the rapid erosion in the value of the Mexican Peso at the end of 2015, which keeps U.S. cattle prices relatively higher in Mexico.
Despite indications of declining cattle numbers in Mexico, record high U.S. prices combined with a weakening Peso kept U.S. imports of Mexican cattle high through 2014 and most of 2015. Domestic Mexican cattle supplies have also been boosted by increased imports of cattle from Central America.
Mexican cattle imports typically follow a pronounced seasonal pattern with exports sharply lower from June through September, which reflects summer heat but more importantly, the rainy season and better forage conditions. These four months typically represent about 20 percent of total annual Mexican cattle imported by the U.S. The seasonal peak in cattle exported to the U.S. is usually in November and December, with those two months accounting for 25 percent of the annual total.
In 2015, November and December represented just 17 percent of the total, while the summer months accounted for nearly 30 percent of total U.S. imports of Mexican cattle.
For the past decade, spayed heifers have accounted for an average of 14 percent of U.S. imports of Mexican cattle. This percentage was above that average in the years 2011-2014, reaching a peak of more than 26 percent of the total in 2012. Exporting more heifers was, I believe, a response to limited feeder supplies and a way to maintain cattle exports to the U.S. in response to strong market signals. However, this was not sustainable and likely contributed to a drawdown in the Mexican cow herd during this period.
In 2015, the heifer percentage of total U.S, imports of Mexican cattle dropped to less than 12 percent. This decrease in heifers exported from Mexico occurred all year in 2015 and was taking place well before the overall drop in exports at the end of the year. This decrease likely reflects decreased female cattle inventories in Mexico and the start of herd rebuilding as a result.
Moisture conditions are good across the majority of Mexico with only a tiny area of drought in northern Baja California, the southern extension of the California drought. Herd rebuilding is expected to accelerate in Mexico in 2016 with domestic cattle prices still at record levels.
Overall, fewer Mexican cattle are expected to be imported into the U.S. in 2016. Limited cattle supplies, further restricted by heifer retention; along with lower U.S. cattle prices are likely to keep cattle exports to the U.S. lower year over year. The continued strength of the U.S. dollar to the Mexican Peso offsets this to some extent but is unlikely to override the underlying supply fundamentals and market incentives.
U.S. imports of Mexican cattle are likely to be down in absolute numbers and certainly will be down in relative terms as U.S. cattle inventories continue to expand.
WASHINGTON (March 1, 2016) – Today, Frank Price testified on behalf of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to the importance of voluntary conservation during the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry hearing “Voluntary Conservation: Utilizing Innovation and Technology”. Price is co-owner and operator of the Frank and Sims Price Ranch in Sterling City, Texas, and recipient of the2014 NCBA Environmental Stewardship Award. Price, a member of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association and NCBA, told the committee that given the diversity of range lands across the country voluntary conservation programs are key to achieving meaningful results.
“A one-size fits all approach that accompanies a top-down regulation does not work,” said Price. “It’s the voluntary part of the conservation practices that really make them work for ranchers. We’ve had success using some of these conservation programs, but just because a system works for us does not mean it is right for everybody. If these programs were to become mandatory, the rules and regulations that follow would make it harder for farmers and ranchers to use unique conservation practices to ensure their individual operations thrive.”
Price stresses that voluntary conservation efforts have allowed him and his son to achieve their top goals: ensuring the ranch remains profitable and that they leave the land in better condition for future generations. While drought and wildfire decimated their ranch in 2011 and 2012, conservation and grazing management allowed them to improve their rangelands through these difficult times. One of the programs he says has helped him achieve their goals is the Environmental Quality Incentive Program.
“When wildfire came through our ranch in 2011, we had to rebuild miles of fencing,” said Price. “EQIP helped us do it through a cost-share. One of the reasons EQIP has become popular among ranchers is because it is a working-lands program. Conservation programs that keep land in production and do not limit its use are the best for both the ranchers and conserving our resources.”
While drought is a constant problem in West Texas, innovative practices and voluntary conservation programs have allowed the Prices to improve their ranch and make their grasslands resilient. For Price, the success of conservation and the ranch economy are not at odds in ensuring we can sustain our country’s natural resources and our way of life for generations.
“I believe that economic activity and conservation go hand-in-hand,” said Price. “We are always looking for new, innovative conservation programs that will have tangible benefits for the environment and help improve our ranching lands. USDA’s conservation programs have been a great asset to cattle producers and it is important that these programs continue to be implemented in the same practical, producer friendly, and voluntary manner for years to come.”
FARGO, N.D. (AP) - The U.S. Department of Agriculture says mild conditions have been easy on livestock and limited hay demands, as snow cover across North Dakota has been minimal as the month closed.
The USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service says temperatures averaged 6 to 9 degrees above normal during February. Producers have busy moving grain to market before spring road weight limits changed.
Cattle and calf conditions are rated 1 percent poor, 12 percent fair, 77 percent good and 10 percent excellent. Calving is 7 percent complete. Winter wheat conditions are rated 5 percent very poor, 4 percent poor, 37 percent fair, 53 percent good, and 2 percent excellent.
Topsoil and subsoil moisture supplies are rated mostly adequate.
Oregon's growing wolf population showed no signs of slowing down in 2015.
The number of Canis lupus increased by 36 percent in Oregon last year to an estimated 110 animals, according to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s annual wolf report.
Despite a politically raucous year that saw wolves removed from the state endangered species list — and a lawsuit filed by environmentalists to challenge that decision — the report shows wolves expanding in numbers and territory.
ODFW documented 11 breeding pairs of wolves in 2015, up from nine in 2014. The agency also counted 33 pups born in 2015 that survived through though Dec. 31.
The numbers are more of an estimate than an hard number, ODFW officials stressed, noting that the real number is likely higher than 110.
“As predicted, Oregon’s wolf population has continued to expand its range and grow in number,” said Russ Morgan, ODFW wolf coordinator. “While northeast Oregon continues to have the highest number of wolves, there is also continued movement of wolves into southern Oregon.”
Morgan said the population growth was driven by three main factors: healthy reproduction, survival through the winter and expansion into new territory.
There are now 10 wolves and four areas of known wolf activity in Western Oregon — classified as west of Highway 395 — clustered to the north and west of Klamath Falls. The trailblazing wolf OR7 and his Rogue Pack account for six of those wolves south of Crater Lake National Park.
Morgan said it's likely that wolves are settling in other parts of the Cascade Range as well.
"We're able to track the wolves in Southern Oregon because many of them have radio collars, but the greater number of wolves in Oregon don't have the collars," Morgan said. "There could very well be wolf activity in other parts of the Cascades that we just don't know about."
Beyond the spread of wolves in Oregon, perhaps the biggest takeaway from this year's report was the decline in attacks on livestock, Morgan said.
ODFW investigations confirmed nine incidents of wolves killing livestock and two probable incidents. The result was 14 animals killed by wolves in 2015.
In contrast, there were 11 confirmed depredations and 32 livestock killed in 2014. Twelve animals were lost to wolves in 2013 and 2012.
"It's really difficult to tell why depredations are down one year and up the next, and that trend could reverse at any time," Morgan said. "I would say that many livestock producers have taken really good, non-lethal steps to minimize depredation and some of those efforts many be paying off."
ODFW distributed $174,428 to address wolf-livestock conflict, including $119,390 used for preventative measures and $14,018 paid to ranchers for confirmed losses.
ODFW documented seven wolf mortalities in 2015. Three were illegally shot, one ingested a chemical that is poisonous to animals and a five-month-old pup found dead in the Catherine Pack rendezvous area appeared to die of natural causes. Thecause of death of the Sled Springs breeding male and female found dead in August is unknown.
Oregon State Police are still actively investigating many of these cases. A Baker City man pled guilty to shooting one of the collared wolves and was fined $2,000 and ordered to forfeit his rifle to the state.
Wolves started to arrive in northeast Oregon during the late 1990s, migrating from the population reintroduced to central Idaho by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service beginning in 1995.
The first pups were born in the Beaver State in 2008, and the numbers slowly grew, hitting 14 in 2009 and 29 by 2011.
While Monday's report shows that wolves are spreading, they still only take up a sliver of their potential habitat in Oregon, according to Oregon State University professor Bill Ripple. In a 2006 study, Ripple estimated that Oregon could support an estimated 1,400 wolves statewide, with the Cascade region home to about 600 wolves.
Morgan said the report confirmed what ODFW had projected — that the wolf population is growing at a healthy rate.
"This was pretty much what we expected," Morgan said. "It just shows that wolves have a tremendous ability to pioneer new areas and be successful. We expect that will continue."
An Oregon State University researcher is part of an international team studying a tiny worm that’s causing big trouble in fields of potatoes - the fourth most consumed food staple in the world. Dee Denver, a genomicist in OSU’s College of Agricultural Sciences, is working with scientists from Idaho, New York, Canada, France and Scotland on a five-year, $3.2 million project funded USDA. The researchers are taking aim at potato cyst nematodes. The nematodes attack the roots, reducing yields by up to 80 percent. A key objective of the study is to find less environmentally damaging strategies for controlling the pests. The U.S. crop brings farmers about $4 billion a year. Oregon State says potatoes are grown on every continent and the U.S. ranks fourth in global production, after China, the Russian Federation and India.
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday declined to hear a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. The Lawsuit filed by the American Farm Bureau was one of hundreds the high court declined to consider. A federal appeals court last year ruled restrictions on fertilizer runoff, wastewater discharges and other bay pollutants are valid, and that decision will stand. The Baltimore Sun reports nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from farmland into the bay fertilize algae blooms that, when they decompose, create dead zones in the bay. The EPA in 2010 set what is known as a "total maximum daily load" of nutrients and sediment permitted to wash into the Chesapeake Bay. Pennsylvania Farm Bureau spokesperson said "the economic viability of local farmers could be in jeopardy because of this plan.” He says the plan allows the EPA to do “whatever they want, whenever they want” and that the ruling is “a major disappointment for farmers.”
