advertisement

John's World
Sunday, September 23, 2007
 
What happens when the deep-fat fryer breaks...



[More]


Now if they just get it onto a stick...

Labels: , ,

 
 
Bad news in old terminology...

To add to Great Britain's farm miseries, a new disease with the charming common name of "bluetongue" has appeared along with a sixth case of foot-and-mouth.
Britain's deputy chief veterinarian Fred Landeg told British television stations on Saturday that a cow on a cattle and sheep farm near Ipswich, Suffolk, northeast of London, tested positive for bluetongue.

The cow was to be slaughtered, other animals on the farm tested to see if they were also infected, and restrictions put in place at the site, Landeg and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said.

National Farmers Union (NFU) President Peter Kendall told BBC television that bluetongue "is definitely not as serious as foot-and-mouth but it is of major concern to us," as it is one more disease to deal with.

He said the disease is carried by insects like midges and is not transferred from animal to animal. [More]

Although this story is unfolding painfully slower than the 2001 FMD epidemic, the stubborn reappearance will likely further decimate British beef trade.

It is hard not to wonder if there is some systemic reason why the "sceptred isle" seems the be the lightning rod for these animal diseases. At the very least, we can say charming small producers in idyllic agrarian settings are not better protected against contagious outbreaks. In fact, it would seem insistence on past methods of animal husbandry sets up producers for persistent ancient disease scourges.

Labels: ,

 
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
 
The precedent problem...

There are many cattlemen in disagreement with the voluntary BSE testing appeal decision by the USDA. One is our own Steve Cornett.
Your reporter remains skeptical about USDA’s refusal to allow voluntary BSE testing. As has been argued before, it’s not that voluntary testing is needed or the expense justified.

That’s not the question.

It’s a matter of the proper role of government and the fact that, from a public relations angle, this looks awful. [More]
This semi-science matter may be linked in the USDA's policy thinking to analogous issues with BST-labels for milk. Allowing marketing differentiation based on the consumer's health perceptions and not the regulator's is profoundly new territory. It may be the USDA is appealing just to say "Hey, we did all we could - blame the courts", when beef industry honchos complain.

As the music industry is finding out, consumers are getting pretty uppity these days.

I think Steve is pointing the right way on this one.

Labels: , , , ,

 
Monday, January 22, 2007
 
This can only get worse...

Thanks to a strange set of consequences, "meatlifting" is now the number one "loss prevention" problem for supermarkets.
Meatlifting is a grave problem for food retailers: According to the Food Marketing Institute, meat was the most shoplifted item in America's grocery stores in 2005. (It barely edged out analgesics and was a few percentage points ahead of razor blades and baby formula.)

Meat's dubious triumph is due in part to a law enforcement crackdown on methamphetamine use. Meat used to be the shoplifting runner-up to health-and-beauty-care items, a category that includes cough medicines containing pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in home-cooked meth. In 2003, for example, a quarter of shoplifted products were HBCs, while meat took second place at 16 percent. But states began passing laws that require stores to move medicines containing pseudoephedrine behind secure counters. That was enough to cut the pinching of HBCs, which fell by 11 percent between 2003 and 2005.


When ethanol demand raises feed prices and the livestock industry cuts back production, meat prices will likely rise. Too many weird store security scenarios spring to mind as shoppers respond with more theft attempts.
So, more innovation is required in the battle against meatlifting. Meat-sniffing dogs pop to mind, though some shoppers might object to having a Doberman nosing around their crotches in search of stolen steaks. But you know what they say about civil liberties in a time of crisis. [more]

Labels: ,

 
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
 
Beef - it's what's in the cross hairs...

Sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry. For example, consider this headline from Green Business News:

Miliband muses on farm farts ban

and this excerpt:

While it is unlikely that this will result in a "fart-tax" with civil servants chasing cows round with breathalyzer style methane measurers, Miliband did argue that farmers should act to reduce methane emissions by feeding cattle different food, breeding them to live longer, altering the handling of manure and getting farms to generate "biogas" or "biofertiliser" from animal waste.

Extending the polluter pays principle to farming would likely lead to higher food prices, but Miliband insisted that climate change could provide an opportunity for farmers, as it has done in other sectors. [More]

[My emphasis]

No, this is not some sophomoric humor rag, but a serious report on a speech in the UK. After we pause for rude jokes, I'll point out what did trigger some speculation on my part.

The "polluter pays" principle is popping up more often in environmental discussions. I'm not sure I disagree. It is a straightforward way to get the cost of externalities included in the price of consumer goods.

Oddly, the polluter-pays principle is accepted by both sides of the environmental issue. The right seeks to define it in terms of private property:
A correct interpretation of the polluter pays principle would detine pollution as any byproduct of a
production or consumption process that harms or otherwise violates the property rights of others. The
polluter would be the person, company, or other organization whose activities are generating that byproduct. And finally, payment should equal the damage and be made to the person or persons being
harmed.
Inanimate objects and the environment do not incur costs, people: do. It is not merely the physical
property that is being damaged, but the interests of the owner. However, most advocates of PPP rarely
talk about harm to people. Instead, they misappropriate the economic theory by redetining the concepts
of cost and damage to apply to things rather than to people. The statement above is typical. Polluters
are said to be those who “damage” or impose “costs” on the environment. [More]

The more familiar version of this axiom accords more rights to the the physical world itself. That is where it gets tricky. As long as my actions on my property do no measurable harm to anyone else, am I polluting? Can I cut down all the trees and re-shape the land to suit?

Strong property rights advocates have held this position for some time, but technology is catching up with them. Just as with the "cow-emissions" stories, we are now able to measure many more forms of "pollution" than before. And doubtless, attorneys are working to use those measurements to demonstrate downstream "harm" that would make recovery of damages legitimate - and the effort billable.

So like many private property defenders, I'm thinking this is a good time to begin negotiations before all the effects of my activities can be traced clearly back to me. (At a visit Tuesday at the EPA, I learned of efforts to use bacteria-tracing to see whose animal doodoo is in the creek). For environmentalists, accommodation is not such a bad idea either, as we have now had enough examples of polluters simply committing corporate suicide (bankruptcy) when challenged adversarially.

But back to the cows. As global warming unmistakably gathers momentum, I expect some of these now-silly ideas to be translated into costs for cattlemen. Either manure digesters or feedlot size limits or feed restrictions - the possibilities are significant.

Now add in feed cost increases due to an escalating market demand for corn. (We are finding out DDG's are not the simple substitute for corn, BTW). Corn farmers could be the unwitting tools of animal activists who want to decrease meat consumption. Some health advocates would likely be smiling as beef prices especially escalate beyond frequent consumption range from most budgets.

So do I think the beef industry is doomed? Oddly, I believe, not here in the US. Beef prices (retail) will rise, and consumption may stagnate, but our beef industry could still emerge strong if it is the best global competitor for the beef consumer dollar. Other producers/packers will have to battle our scale, efficiency and brand power to maintain market share.

Still corn producer's fickle abandonment of their long-time #1 customer - the cow - is short-sighted. The problem is serious for poultry and hogs, but the feed-conversion ratios suggest that beef could be the hardest hit.

On top of all that, factor the loss of grazing ground from conversion of CRP acres. Although that risk may be overstated.

It may not be Marlboros that kill the cowboy - it could be corn farmers.

Labels: ,

 
US Farm Report host John Phipps surfs the Web so you don't have to...

My Photo
Name: John Phipps
Location: Chrisman, Illinois, United States

Jan and I farm 1700 acres near Chrisman, IL. I have also written humor and commentary for Farm Journal and Top Producer for 13 years. Please visit my website (www.johnwphipps.com) to learn about my speaking services for your group's next meeting.

ARCHIVES
April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 /


advertisement

MORE FROM JOHN
On the Coffee Table

Farm JournalTop ProducerBeef TodayDairy TodayAgDay
U.S. Farm ReportPro FarmerPro Farmer Members

AgWeb Professional - Subscription InformationAdd AgWeb.com to your Favorites

FAQContact UsPrivacy PolicyAdvertise on AgWeb.com

Quotes by eSignal • Quotes delayed at least 10 min

© Copyright 2006 AgWeb.com a division of Farm Journal, Inc.

Home    |    Agriculture News    |    Weather    |    Money & Markets    |    Ag Discussions    |    Site Map