Russia’s temporary export ban on grain emphasizes the need to maintain productive agriculture in home markets, said the United Kingdom's National Farmers' Union (NFU).
“Wheat prices are up by 70% on prices in June this year, rising 11% on Thursday, August 5 alone," said NFU combinable crops board Chairman Ian Backhouse. "Heavy rain is being blamed for wiping out the wheat crop in Canada and today’s announcement from Russia comes after the worst drought in more than a hundred years, which has devastated crops both there and in the Ukraine.”
Backhouse said it was impossible to speculate on the impact that the dramatic market movement would have, and added that it served to show how important it was to maintain and develop home production capacity in grain when faced with unpredictable supply from overseas.
“Events in this past week, resulting in extreme market movements, underline the importance of a vibrant domestic grain industry and a strong European agricultural policy that focuses on delivering a more productive, competitive sector to ensure food security both at home and abroad,” said Backhouse.
Drought and wildfires are thought to have devastated more than a third of the cultivable land in Russia, and the export ban is due to start on August 15.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has described the move as “expedient” to keep domestic prices low and to maintain cattle numbers.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
US livestock, poultry organizations oppose ethanol subsidies and protective tariffs
A consortium comprising the American Meat Institute, National Cattleman’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Pork Producer’s Council and the National Turkey Federation addressed a letter to the Senate majority and minority leaders in mid-July opposing continuation of the tax credits and protective tariffs relating to ethanol production, which are due to expire at the end of 2010.
The letter specified that ethanol production will absorb 4.5 billion bushels of corn from the 2009-2010 harvest. Diversion of corn has resulted in escalation in feed costs, which has severely impacted the volume and profitability of intensive animal production.
Although the unprecedented corn price of almost $8 per bushel has declined, it is estimated that feed costs for 2010 will be 25% higher than the costs prevailing during the first six years following 2000. Economists affiliated with the animal production groups estimated that the pork industry was subjected to more than $6.2 billion in losses from October 2007 through January 2010 and the beef industry lost $7 billion over the same period.
The cumulative additional cost to broiler production has amounted to $15 billion from the fall of 2006 to the spring of 2010. The August 2009 U.S. Accountability Office Report “Bio-fuels-Potential Effects and Challenges have Required Increases in Production and Use” projected the annual cost to the Treasury for the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) of $4 billion in 2008 and $6.8 billion in 2015. It is further estimated that the cost to taxpayers of using ethanol to reduce gasoline consumption was $1.78 per gallon.
To place biofuels production in perspective, the July 28 Weekly Ethanol Report from the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) documented an average daily production of 34.2 million gallons for the week ending July 23, 2010. Based on gasoline production of 404.5 million gallons, ethanol inclusion represented 8.5%.
The ethanol industry, according to experts, would benefit if the so-called “blend ceiling” as mandated by the federal government were to be increased from 10% (which it has not currently achieved) to a value of 15% as requested. The RFA has joined with the National Corn Growers’ Association and the American Coalition for Ethanol to urge the Environmental Protection Agency to approve the immediate use of E12 and a full waiver for the use of E15 in all vehicles.
The debate continues and the decision of Congress will obviously be influenced by the weight of lobbying and the concerns of vested interests on both sides of the issue.
The letter specified that ethanol production will absorb 4.5 billion bushels of corn from the 2009-2010 harvest. Diversion of corn has resulted in escalation in feed costs, which has severely impacted the volume and profitability of intensive animal production.
Although the unprecedented corn price of almost $8 per bushel has declined, it is estimated that feed costs for 2010 will be 25% higher than the costs prevailing during the first six years following 2000. Economists affiliated with the animal production groups estimated that the pork industry was subjected to more than $6.2 billion in losses from October 2007 through January 2010 and the beef industry lost $7 billion over the same period.
The cumulative additional cost to broiler production has amounted to $15 billion from the fall of 2006 to the spring of 2010. The August 2009 U.S. Accountability Office Report “Bio-fuels-Potential Effects and Challenges have Required Increases in Production and Use” projected the annual cost to the Treasury for the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) of $4 billion in 2008 and $6.8 billion in 2015. It is further estimated that the cost to taxpayers of using ethanol to reduce gasoline consumption was $1.78 per gallon.
To place biofuels production in perspective, the July 28 Weekly Ethanol Report from the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) documented an average daily production of 34.2 million gallons for the week ending July 23, 2010. Based on gasoline production of 404.5 million gallons, ethanol inclusion represented 8.5%.
The ethanol industry, according to experts, would benefit if the so-called “blend ceiling” as mandated by the federal government were to be increased from 10% (which it has not currently achieved) to a value of 15% as requested. The RFA has joined with the National Corn Growers’ Association and the American Coalition for Ethanol to urge the Environmental Protection Agency to approve the immediate use of E12 and a full waiver for the use of E15 in all vehicles.
The debate continues and the decision of Congress will obviously be influenced by the weight of lobbying and the concerns of vested interests on both sides of the issue.
AFIA requests revision of FDA draft guidance on Reportable Food Registry
Formal comments provided to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) recommended revision of definitions relating to “responsible parties,” “transfer” and “reportable food” with respect to the proposed Reportable Food Registry.
The AFIA has requested that the FDA revise the draft guidance to include the following statement: “No reportable food report is required if a load of incoming product has been sampled, but legal transfer has not occurred, providing the trailer is on the premises of the facility only for as long as is necessary to sample, test and reject the shipment, and no longer. Your facility has not ‘held’ reportable food, therefore you are not a ‘responsible party’ with regards to such food.”
The situation under consideration relates to the relative responsibilities of the feed mill and consigner for a shipment of ingredients which may contain an adulterant and the responsibility of the recipient to report the contaminated load before ownership is transferred. The second issue relates to microbial contamination of ingredients in animal feeds. The present draft guidance requires that any positive test result subjects the raw material or feed to be classified as a “reportable food.”
The AFIA has invoked the Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization’s 2007 report relating to the presence of human pathogens in ingredients or livestock feeds. This provision specifically relates to the presence of Salmonella spp. which may be present in feed at low levels but does not “generally make animals sick and poses little risk to livestock owners.”
AFIA Vice President Richard Sellers said the FDA needs to establish when action should be taken to ensure human food safety in relation to animal feeds, basing decisions on the best available science.
The AFIA has requested that the FDA revise the draft guidance to include the following statement: “No reportable food report is required if a load of incoming product has been sampled, but legal transfer has not occurred, providing the trailer is on the premises of the facility only for as long as is necessary to sample, test and reject the shipment, and no longer. Your facility has not ‘held’ reportable food, therefore you are not a ‘responsible party’ with regards to such food.”
The situation under consideration relates to the relative responsibilities of the feed mill and consigner for a shipment of ingredients which may contain an adulterant and the responsibility of the recipient to report the contaminated load before ownership is transferred. The second issue relates to microbial contamination of ingredients in animal feeds. The present draft guidance requires that any positive test result subjects the raw material or feed to be classified as a “reportable food.”
The AFIA has invoked the Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization’s 2007 report relating to the presence of human pathogens in ingredients or livestock feeds. This provision specifically relates to the presence of Salmonella spp. which may be present in feed at low levels but does not “generally make animals sick and poses little risk to livestock owners.”
AFIA Vice President Richard Sellers said the FDA needs to establish when action should be taken to ensure human food safety in relation to animal feeds, basing decisions on the best available science.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Hispanic market has potential strength
An article by Peter Francese in Advertising Age stresses the potential for sales to the Hispanic market. The article is extracted from a white paper “Hispanic America 2010” detailing the demographics and purchasing power of this important segment of the population.
It is anticipated that the 2010 Census will record 50 million Hispanics in the U.S., representing the second-largest consumer market. The average Hispanic family has four members compared to 2.9 members in the average Caucasian family. More than a third of Hispanics in the U.S. are under 18 years of age and at least 44% of the demographic is conversant in English.
Concentration of Hispanics is a reality which can be applied to developing distribution channels. With 76% of the target population in eight states and 50% in two states (California and Texas), this highlights the opportunity for direct marketing of eggs and derived products. Indirect evidence suggests that Hispanics are significant consumers of eggs justifying directed branding, promotional, product and distribution strategies to enhance consumption.
It is anticipated that the 2010 Census will record 50 million Hispanics in the U.S., representing the second-largest consumer market. The average Hispanic family has four members compared to 2.9 members in the average Caucasian family. More than a third of Hispanics in the U.S. are under 18 years of age and at least 44% of the demographic is conversant in English.
Concentration of Hispanics is a reality which can be applied to developing distribution channels. With 76% of the target population in eight states and 50% in two states (California and Texas), this highlights the opportunity for direct marketing of eggs and derived products. Indirect evidence suggests that Hispanics are significant consumers of eggs justifying directed branding, promotional, product and distribution strategies to enhance consumption.
Production, feed costs for July 2010
The July 26 Layer Feed Price and Costs newsletter issued by the Egg Industry Center indicates an increase in feed prices and hence cost of production. Average U.S. feed cost increased by $2.89 per ton to $205.40 per ton compared to June. Production cost ex-farm/house advanced by 1.43 cents per dozen from June to 58.41 cents per dozen in July. Feed price by region ranged from $180.80/ ton in the Midwest to $223.00/ton in California. Production cost ranged from 53.54 cents per dozen in the Midwest to 62.07 cents per dozen in California.
Production cost included feed, labor (at 4 cents per dozen), buildings and equipment (at 2.9 cents per dozen), interest (at 1.8 cents per dozen) and miscellaneous cost (at 6 cents per dozen). The major contributor to the regional difference in feed cost was the differential in corn and soybean meal amounting to $52.70 per ton for corn and $31.80 per ton for soybean meal comparing Midwest and California ingredient prices respectively.
Production cost included feed, labor (at 4 cents per dozen), buildings and equipment (at 2.9 cents per dozen), interest (at 1.8 cents per dozen) and miscellaneous cost (at 6 cents per dozen). The major contributor to the regional difference in feed cost was the differential in corn and soybean meal amounting to $52.70 per ton for corn and $31.80 per ton for soybean meal comparing Midwest and California ingredient prices respectively.
Comparison of eggs from caged, pastured hens
A recent peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems compared eggs from hens in cages fed conventional layer diets with free ranged hens fed on either grass, alfalfa or clover pastures.
Hens on pasture were fed a conventional diet for the six week experimental period. Eggs from hens on pasture in comparison with eggs from caged hens had twice the level of vitamin E and omega-3 fatty acids and demonstrated a more favorable omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acid ratio. At the end of the experiment, pastured hens were 14% lighter than caged hens and produced 15% fewer eggs.
Although maintaining hens on pasture enhanced the nutrient content of their eggs compared to caged hens the same effect is achieved by dietary supplementation as in the case of the leading specialty brands with higher vitamin E and omega-3 fatty acid content. The marked drop in body weight and reduced egg production over a six week period suggest that had the trial been extended, further deterioration would have occurred adding to the inherent losses due to predation, parasitism and pathogens.
The article did not include an economic analysis but it is evident that increased labor costs associated with operating flocks on pasture together with the deterioration in production efficiency would produce an inferior return relative to confined, high-density housing.
Hens on pasture were fed a conventional diet for the six week experimental period. Eggs from hens on pasture in comparison with eggs from caged hens had twice the level of vitamin E and omega-3 fatty acids and demonstrated a more favorable omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acid ratio. At the end of the experiment, pastured hens were 14% lighter than caged hens and produced 15% fewer eggs.
Although maintaining hens on pasture enhanced the nutrient content of their eggs compared to caged hens the same effect is achieved by dietary supplementation as in the case of the leading specialty brands with higher vitamin E and omega-3 fatty acid content. The marked drop in body weight and reduced egg production over a six week period suggest that had the trial been extended, further deterioration would have occurred adding to the inherent losses due to predation, parasitism and pathogens.
The article did not include an economic analysis but it is evident that increased labor costs associated with operating flocks on pasture together with the deterioration in production efficiency would produce an inferior return relative to confined, high-density housing.
NC Department of Agriculture releases on-farm poultry processing clarifications
The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' Meat and Poultry Inspection Division (MPID) announced a new clarification of on-farm poultry processing regulations.
Previously, a 1,000 poultry limit exemption was in place that allowed farmers to slaughter and process up to 1,000 healthy birds per calendar year on their own premises, provided that they raised the birds themselves and kept the resulting food products within the state of North Carolina. In addition, the poultry could be slaughtered without mandatory daily inspection. Now, an exemption has been created that raises the limit to 20,000 birds.
Farmers utilizing the exemption must still meet all regulatory requirements and keep detailed records of their compliance. "Our intent is to visit all on-farm processing locations in the state, and to conduct additional visits annually and as needed," said MPID Director Don Delozier. "This is not processing without inspection; the exemption simply means that farms are not required to be inspected daily." With the new regulation in place, and coupled with growing farmer and consumer interest in on-farm processing, the MPID said it expects to see an increase in home-grown poultry being sold in the state.
Previously, a 1,000 poultry limit exemption was in place that allowed farmers to slaughter and process up to 1,000 healthy birds per calendar year on their own premises, provided that they raised the birds themselves and kept the resulting food products within the state of North Carolina. In addition, the poultry could be slaughtered without mandatory daily inspection. Now, an exemption has been created that raises the limit to 20,000 birds.
Farmers utilizing the exemption must still meet all regulatory requirements and keep detailed records of their compliance. "Our intent is to visit all on-farm processing locations in the state, and to conduct additional visits annually and as needed," said MPID Director Don Delozier. "This is not processing without inspection; the exemption simply means that farms are not required to be inspected daily." With the new regulation in place, and coupled with growing farmer and consumer interest in on-farm processing, the MPID said it expects to see an increase in home-grown poultry being sold in the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
