
February 16, 2018
Subscribe to our weekly dairy or livestock email
newsletter at CapitalPress.com/newsletters
By CAROL RYAN DUMAS
Capital Press
Memphis Meats
Uma Valeti, Memphis Meats CEO and co-founder, center, and
Nicholas Genovese, Memphis Meats CSO and co-founder. They
expect to have their cultured meat offered to the public in 2021.
Cattlemen’s organizations have asked regulators to make sure
such products are labeled.
NCBA’s new policy recog-
nizes the work it’s been doing
behind the scenes for about a
year to address new products
that are perhaps labeled in
a way that is misleading or
confusing to consumers, said
Danielle Beck, NCBA direc-
tor of government affairs.
Companies have devel-
oped plant-based foods that
bleed and sizzle, are packaged
like real meat and sit next to
real meat in the grocery store.
NCBA wants labels that dis-
tinguish real meat from fake
meat for those products and
new ones that will be coming
to market, she said.
In addition, meat grown in
Petri dishes is making its way
to the marketplace, and the is-
sue is how it will be labeled so
it’s clear to consumers that it’s
not traditionally grown meat,
she said.
NCBA has already started
working with USDA and the
Food and Drug Administra-
tion, but the issue is not as
clear-cut as one might think,
she said.
FDA has jurisdiction over
plant-based foods, and imi-
tation products that are nu-
tritionally inferior to the real
product can’t legally use the
nomenclature of the real prod-
ucts, she said.
The dairy industry has
fought that battle for years,
with plant-based products us-
ing terms such as “milk” and
“yogurt.”
USDA has jurisdiction
over meat — but while there’s
a formal standard to identify
meat, there’s no such standard
for beef. And cultured meat
has not yet come to market, so
it’s unclear which agency will
regulate it, she said.
“We’re not anti-technol-
ogy; we’ve always been big
fans of innovation,” she said.
NCBA just wants to make
sure those alternative prod-
ucts are labeled in a way that’s
clear to customers and doesn’t
disparage traditionally grown
beef, she said.
USCA’s petition states
those alternative products
should not be permitted to be
marketed as beef or meat.
Products labeled “beef”
and “meat” should be limit-
ed to products from animals
born, raised and processed in
the traditional manner, and
those definitions should not
be limited to just U.S. prod-
uct, the organization said.
“U.S. cattle producers take
pride in developing the high-
est quality and safest beef in
the world, and labels must
clearly distinguish that differ-
ence,” Kenny Graner, USCA
president, said in a statement.
U.S. beef, pork exports break records
By CAROL RYAN DUMAS
Capital Press
U.S. exports of beef and
pork set records in 2017, with
beef exceeding the mark in
value and pork surpassing the
pinnacle in volume, according
to a new report by the U.S.
Meat Export Federation.
Beef exports reached $7.27
billion, up 15 percent year
over year and 2 percent higher
than the previous record high
of $7.13 billion in 2014. At
1.26 million metric tons, they
increased 6 percent from 2016
and were the fourth-largest
volume on record.
“This was a remarkable
year for beef exports, in our
mainstay markets in northern
Asia as well as emerging des-
tinations in South America,
Southeast Asia and Africa,”
said Dan Halstrom, USMEF
president and CEO, in the fed-
eration’s year-end tally.
Pork exports totaled 2.45
million metric tons, breaking
the 2016 record by 6 percent.
The value of those exports at
$6.49 billion was up 9 percent
and second only to $6.65 bil-
lion in 2014.
“The new volume record
for pork is impressive, but it’s
important to note that export
value increased at an even
more rapid pace — which
confirms that international
Associated Press File
A sales person at the Jusco
Supermarket in Tokyo arranges
U.S. beef products. U.S. beef
gained significant market share in
Japan last year, according to the
U.S. Meat Export Federation.
demand is robust and that ex-
ports deliver a strong return,”
Halstrom said.
U.S. beef gained signifi-
cant market share in Japan, de-
spite considerable obstacles,
and posted a record-breaking
performance in South Korea
and Taiwan, he said.
“These markets are espe-
cially critical for chilled beef
exports, which were up about
25 percent year over year.
This has a tremendous impact
on carcass value,” he said.
Japan solidified its posi-
tion as the leading market for
11
Livestock
Cattlemen aim to safeguard turf against ‘fake meat’
The proliferation of plant-
based proteins marketed as
“burgers” and large invest-
ments to develop cultured
meats grown in laboratories
have cattle producers dou-
bling down on their efforts to
protect the identity of tradi-
tionally grown beef.
Earlier this month, the
National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association adopted a poli-
cy to protect consumers and
the beef industry from “fake
meat” and misleading labels.
On Friday, the U.S. Cattle-
men’s Association petitioned
USDA for rulemaking to es-
tablish accurate beef labeling
requirements to differentiate
between beef products de-
rived from cattle and alterna-
tives created in a laboratory.
Those actions follow re-
cent investments by Tyson
Foods, Cargill, tech billion-
aire Bill Gates and other com-
panies developing alternative
protein sources.
Both Tyson and Cargill
have announced investments
in Memphis Meats, a start-up
company developing cultured
meat grown from animal cells.
Tyson has also announced an
additional investment in Be-
yond Meat, a company that
manufactures
plant-based
proteins.
CapitalPress.com
U.S. beef, with volume up
19 percent to 307,559 metric
tons and value up 25 percent
to $1.89 billion.
The results could have
been even more impressive if
not for the tariff rate increase
on frozen beef, Erin Borror,
USMEF economist, told Cap-
ital Press.
That increase was imposed
last summer when rising im-
ports of frozen beef triggered
a 1994 safeguard meant to
protect Japan’s domestic pro-
ducers. Tariffs on U.S. ex-
ports of frozen beef to Japan
increased from 38.5 percent
to 50 percent and will remain
until the start of the Japanese
fiscal year in April.
Much of the business in
the fall and winter was al-
ready contracted before the
safeguard was triggered, and
fortunately it was triggered
at a time of booming demand
for U.S. beef in China, Borror
said.
“U.S. beef has not only
taken market share from Aus-
tralia but has also capitalized
on Japan’s growing beef con-
sumption. So Japan’s imports
of both chilled and frozen U.S.
beef continued to increase by
double digits year over year,
even after the higher tariff on
frozen beef was implemented
in August,” she said.
U.S. chilled beef exports
to Japan were up 37 percent in
value to $1.102 billion and 32
percent in volume to 148,688
metric tons.
Those exports were al-
ready accelerating at a faster
pace than frozen exports be-
fore the tariff increase, she
said.
Japan was also the leading
value market for U.S. pork
exports, increasing 4 percent
in value to $1.63 billion and 2
percent in volume to 393,648
metric tons.
Wolf compensation
bill clears initial hurdle
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Bureau
SALEM — A proposal
tying the amount of money
available to ranchers for live-
stock losses to Oregon’s wolf
population has cleared its first
hurdle.
Under House Bill 4106,
Oregon lawmakers would be
required to appropriate mon-
ey to the state’s wolf com-
pensation fund based on the
population of the species, to
the extent practicable.
The bill was scheduled
for a work session in the
House Agriculture Commit-
tee, allowing the proposal to
survive an initial legislative
deadline, said Rep. Brian
Clem, D-Salem, the commit-
tee’s chairman.
Several ranchers testified
that it only makes sense to
increase compensation fund-
ing as the number of wolves
in Oregon continues rising.
State wildlife regulators cur-
rently peg the wolf popula-
tion at more than 100, though
some ranchers consider that a
low estimate.
In Wallowa County, which
is home to eight confirmed
wolfpacks, it costs up to
$30,000 a year to have a range
rider patrol for the predators,
said Rod Childers, a rancher
in the area.
“One range rider is not
cutting it,” he said. “There’s
no way he can respond to all
those different packs.”
The Oregon League of
Conservation Voters opposes
HB 4106 because it would
confirm the “falsehood” that
rising wolf populations will
necessarily result in more
livestock kills, said Paige
Spence, the group’s Oregon
conservation network direc-
tor.
“Predation rates have not
increased with Oregon’s in-
creased wolf population,” she
said.
Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife
A bill that would increase
compensation for livestock
losses based on Oregon’s
wolf population has survived
an initial legislative deadline.
Sean Stevens, executive
director of the Oregon Wild
environmental group, said
problems with fraud and
abuse of the wolf compensa-
tion fund should be resolved
before the program is expand-
ed.
Counties have recom-
mended the disbursal of
compensation funds without
sufficient input from the local
committees, and sometimes
in areas with no wolves or
confirmed depredations, he
said.
Childers, the Wallowa
County rancher, said that
wolf compensation funds are
well-vetted.
“We do the best we can on
the ground,” he said. “I don’t
believe there’s widespread
fraud in any of our programs.”
In some cases, wolf com-
pensation funds are used
to prepare for the arrival of
wolves in regions they’ve yet
to be documented, said Todd
Nash, a rancher and chairman
of the Oregon Cattlemen’s
Association’s wolf commit-
tee.
For example, the money
pays for the disposal of live-
stock and wildlife carcasses,
which would otherwise at-
tract predators, as well as the
installation of fladry, which is
rope adorned with ribbons to
deter predators.
Analysts see growth potential in beef herd
By CAROL RYAN DUMAS
Capital Press
USDA’s annual inventory
of cattle shows the number of
all beef and dairy cattle and
calves in the U.S. was up 1
percent year over year on Jan.
1 to 94.4 million, an increase
of nearly 700,000 head.
The number of beef cows
and calved heifers increased 2
percent to top 31.7 million, up
almost 510,000.
However, the agency re-
ported decreases in replace-
ment beef heifers and replace-
ment beef heifers expected
to calve, which were down 4
percent and 5 percent, respec-
tively.
At 6.1 million head, re-
placement heifers are 237,000
fewer than a year ago. Those
expected to calve this year, at
nearly 3.8 million, are down
about 208,000.
While the replacement
heifer counts are lower year
over year, analysts say those
numbers are still strong and
could lead to more herd
growth.
“It’s certainly possible, it’s
kind of wait-and-see,” said
Derrell Peel, livestock market-
ing specialist with Oklahoma
State University.
“It would certainly support
a limited amount of growth if
conditions are right,” he said.
Markets were stronger than
expected in 2017, despite an
increase in beef production,
with a decent level of profit
in most sectors. If that con-
tinues in 2018, there could be
additional herd expansion. But
that’s not guaranteed, he said.
“There’s enough heifers out
there to grow. We could see an-
other half percent, plus or mi-
nus, growth this year,” he said.
The number of heifers and
heifers expected to calve are
both down from last year, but
that’s coming down from ex-
traordinarily high levels, he
said.
Those animals as a per-
centage of the herd are still at
a higher level than the indus-
try ever got to in the 1990s,
the last full herd expansion, he
said.
The average share of heif-
er replacements in the overall
herd in 1993 to 1995 was 18.3
percent. The latest inventory
report shows them at 19.3 per-
cent of the herd, he said.
“There’s enough to support
a moderate level of growth,”
he said.
John Nalivka, owner of
Sterling Marketing, said he’s
expecting about the same level
of growth this coming year as
what was seen in 2017.
There’s still room for
growth, given the increase in
beef cow numbers, he said,
“And I think there are
more heifers out there that will
calve” than the report sug-
gests, he said.
The survey numbers are
only estimates. The lower
number of heifers expected to
calve this year remains to be
seen, he said.
Those heifers would have
been retained in 2016 and
bred in 2017. While profits to
cow-calf producers in 2016
were down significantly from
the record highs in 2014 and
2015, producers still made
nearly $175 per cow, he said.
“We haven’t had a drought,
and 2016 had good forage
conditions and low grain pric-
es,” he said.
In addition, cow-calf prof-
its were good in 2017 as well,
$155 to $160 per cow, he said.
All those factors lead him
to believe producers were
holding back more heifers
in 2016 and breeding them
in 2017 than the report sug-
gests.
“Time will tell. I think
we’ll still have continued
growth in the cattle invento-
ry and be up about 1 percent”
this year, he said.
7-3/102