Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 8, 2017)
September 8, 2017 CapitalPress.com Subscribe to our weekly dairy or livestock email newsletter at CapitalPress.com/newsletters Dairy/Livestock Washington dairies not reporting cow sales online By DON JENKINS Capital Press Washington dairies are not using an online system to report cow sales, apparently leaving a hole in the state Department of Agriculture’s ability to trace the source and spread of livestock diseases, according to a new report. The WSDA report released Aug. 29 says only one of the state’s nearly 400 diaries has used the system, which the department set up at the begin- ning of 2016 at the industry’s request to help producers meet reporting requirements. “Sometimes new things are slow to catch on,” Washington State Dairy Federation Execu- tive Director Dan Wood said. “It’s in everybody’s interest to report transactions.” WSDA launched the system at the same time it began requir- ing dairies to report all sales of unbranded female cows. Previously, sales of 15 or fewer head didn’t have to be reported. WSDA says it needs to track all cows to respond Don Jenkins/Capital Press The Washington State Department of Agriculture reports an online system set up at the dairy industry’s request to report sales of unbranded female cows has been used by one dairy in the last year and a half. quickly to disease outbreaks and minimize economic dam- age to the cattle industry. The system, seen as a more convenient and cheaper al- ternative to in-person brand inspections, has gone unused despite “extensive outreach,” according to WSDA. The de- partment mailed postcards and letters to dairies, posted infor- mation online and handed out fact sheets at dairy conferences. Seven dairies registered to use the system. One dairy re- ported two sales involving a total of 31 cows, according to the report. The report did not say whether dairies have been reporting sales through the more-expensive brand-inspec- tion program. Further informa- tion from WSDA was unavail- able Thursday. The department estimates electronic reporting will cost producers half as much as brand inspections in some cases. WSDA said in its report that it will work with the industry to “increase awareness that the do-nothing approach is no lon- ger viable.” WSDA spent $15,000 to de- velop the system and says it will cost $1,500 a year to maintain. So far, the system has collected $40 in fees. “It is apparent that licensed dairy producers are not using (electronic reporting) as an alternative to livestock brand inspections,” according to the report. “Without increased use, the program cannot continue to operate (electronic reporting) at a loss.” Wood said the dairy feder- ation will continue to promote electronic reporting. “It’s a great opportunity that I think people will get comfortable with in time and needs to remain an option,” he said. Cattle Producers of Wash- ington President Scott Nielsen said the electronic-reporting system has failed to live up to the dairy industry’s promises. “I don’t really like to beat up on our dairy producers,” he said. “They have it worse than we do as far as having (gov- ernment) oversight on their operations.” Still, he said, “if you’re try- ing to do animal-disease trace- ability, you better need to know where those animals are going. ... They (state agriculture offi- cials) need to put dairies under the brand department.” Fees on cattle sales also fund the Washington Beef Commis- sion and WSDA’s brand-in- spection program. Both the commission and WSDA say the fees are not keeping up with expenses. Washington Cattle Feeders Association Executive Direc- tor Jack Field said he was dis- appointed electronic reporting hasn’t been used more, but that he hopes WSDA doesn’t give up on the system. Some in the beef industry are interested in using electronic reporting, he said. “It may have a spot in the future,” Field said. “I would hate to just scrap it. “Obviously, the outreach was not as effective as it could have been,” he said. “I’m not going to call it a failure. I’m going to call it an opportunity to learn.” To report sales, dairy pro- ducers register online with WSDA. “I haven’t heard any nega- tives about it,” Wood said. WSDA compiled the report at the request of the Legislature. Cowgirl Camp helps build skills, network among women ranchers Program mixes sustainable management, hands-on experience By MATTHEW WEAVER Capital Press CHENEY, Wash. — Eight women new to ranching spent last week learning the intrica- cies of tending livestock and managing the land. The instructors were ranchers Beth Robinette and Sandy Matheson, who taught the unique five-day New Cowgirl Camp, a pilot course they offered only to women. Robinette taught partici- pants everything from how to plan livestock grazing through the year to how to climb over barb-wire fences. The camp took place Aug. 28- Sept. 1 at Robinette’s ranch in Cheney, Wash. Rob- inette said Aug. 31 the camp had “far surpassed” her “wild- est expectations.” She and Matheson wanted to mix the theory of sustain- able livestock management with hands-on practical skills, Matthew Weaver/Capital Press Cheney, Wash., rancher Beth Robinette shows participants in the new Cowgirl Camp an abandoned blackbird nest she found on wetlands. She keeps her cattle away from the area through mid-July. Robinette showed participants different parts of the land and how to plan managed grazing Aug. 31. developing the actual tools ranchers need to have, she said. “And then we had this twist where we really want- ed to focus on women, both being women in agriculture and seeing women are really underrepresented in agricul- ture,” she said. “There’s no reason for it to be that way.” Rosle Dyre was one of the students. Originally from Denmark, she now works at a ranch in British Columbia. She previously worked at a Savory Institute hub ranch — the organization promotes holistic ranch management — in Chile, where she got interested in sustainable farm- ing. Robinette’s ranch is also a learning site for an institute hub. “That’s what I want to do with my life,” Dyre said. “I saw this course and I thought, ‘That’s pretty close.’” She wanted to learn more about using animals as a tool in managing the land and hopes to have a cattle and sheep ranch in her home country. Joan Becich, of Ashland, Ore., owns a small ranch, but doesn’t have an agricultural background and hasn’t been involved in its management. She participated in the camp to get exposure to the right techniques, she said. Over the course of several days, Becich said, she became less fearful about the under- taking. “I know there’s going to be help out there,” she said. Bonnie Buxton of Med- ford, Ore., participated be- cause she, her husband and her husband’s family went into business with property where the pastures had been poorly managed. No one knew anything about cattle ranching, she said, so she’s been taking courses to learn more about grazing and rota- tional management. “Seeing practical applica- tion of what I’ve been reading in the books is very helpful,” Buxton said. A retired veterinarian, Matheson said it’s been amaz- ing to watch the students try new things and build connec- tions. One of the participants isn’t interested in ranching, but wanted to learn more about the leather supply chain. Robinette and another participant helped her plan a business presentation. Analyst: More exports needed to offset growing beef supplies By CAROL RYAN DUMAS Capital Press The U.S. beef industry will be dealing with large supplies in the near future and domestic consumption that’s at, or near, its peak. To keep supply and demand in balance, analysts say beef exports will need to grow by 19 to 21 percent from 2016 levels by 2022. That means exports will need to grow above the his- torical ceiling of 10 percent of total U.S. beef production (on a carcass-weight basis) to as high as 13 percent, Rabobank analysts said this week in their long-term outlook for U.S. beef and cattle. Expansion of the U.S. beef cow herd, which began in 2014, is expected to continue for the next two to three years, growing 1.6 percent to 2.2 per- cent. That growth will result in an 8 to 10 percent spike in beef production over 2016 levels by 2021 and 2022, they said. While domestic consump- tion is expected to grow by 7.8 percent through 2022, U.S. production will exceed domes- tic demand, said Don Close, 7 RaboResearch senior analyst of animal protein. “As a result, exports will increase. While that is a good thing, there are pitfalls as well,” he said. The increase in exports isn’t a large amount, but a crit- ical component is that it will put the U.S. over the line from a net importer of beef to a net exporter — and game-chang- ing dynamics go along with that, he said. “No doubt volatility has increased in recent years and as we become a net exporter, there are inherent volatility issues such as global politics, trade policies and global ani- mal health issues,” he said. “In the past, when the U.S. was a net importer of beef, we had the luxury of ebb and flow of imported product to offset domestic production. As a net exporter, we will be more ex- posed to market volatility,” he said. But the analysts are “abso- lutely looking for the U.S. to be a more substantial exporter” going forward, he said. “Given the current and pro- jected production levels and a mature domestic market, we have to be a larger exporter to clear the level of produc- tion. The second driver is we do see additional growth, not only with existing customers in Southeast Asia but with the development of trade with China,” he said. “We are not only looking at the increase in U.S. production but looking at the increase in cattle quality characteristics,” he said. There’s been a sharp increase in cattle grading rates in the U.S. in the last 10 years, from 60 per- cent grading choice or better to 80 percent, he said. Dairy Markets Lee Mielke Butter melting; cheese recovering By LEE MIELKE For the Capital Press D airy prices plunged the last week of August as traders weighed the heavy stocks of cheese in stor- age. The block cheddar closed Sept. 1 at $1.54 per pound, down 11 cents on the week after losing 10 1/2-cents the previous week, 14 cents below a year ago, and 24 3/4-cents below the Aug. 1 level. The markets were closed Monday for Labor Day but Tuesday saw the blocks jump 5 3/4-cents, to $1.5975, as traders considered the morn- ing’s GDT and anticipated Tuesday afternoon’s July Dairy Products report. The barrels closed Friday at $1.52, down 3 3/4-cents on the week, 12 cents below a year ago and down 14 cents on the month. They gained 3 3/4-cents Tuesday, hitting $1.5575, with 20 cars selling on the day. The lower prices and weakening dollar lead many to believe exports should be multiplying. Dairy Market News says milk is “fairly available for cheese process- ing in the Midwest,” and spot milk prices are $1 under to $1 over class. Western producers are not having trouble finding milk, and cheese output is robust. Cheese demand is mixed and inventories are building slightly. With school start- ups and the unofficial end of summer at hand, consumer grilling demand is slowing, but cut and wrap demand is solid. Contacts suggest some requests for mozzarella and other pizza cheeses have yet to develop, leading some to speculate that end users bought supplies earlier in the summer. Cash butter was also caught in last week’s down- draft, closing Friday at $2.5075 per pound, down 12 cents on the week, 45 3/4-cents above a year ago, and down 17 1/2-cents on the month, but is the cheapest butter on the planet. Tuesday took the but- ter down another 7 cents, to $2.4375, lowest price since June 1, 2017. Butter demand continues to be positive but Central pro- ducers report more interest in unsalted butter, as global prices are markedly higher than domestic rates. Butter output remains active and the market tone has been fairly steady though contacts who thought a $3 market price was a near-term possibility have tempered their expectations. 36-2/#102