Adair County
Hot
Topics
|
Trends . . . DRESSED WEIGHTS FOR CATTLE, HOGS & LAMBS |
| Dressed
weights for cattle, hogs and lambs have rather clear seasonal patterns.
Weights have generally followed the normal seasonal patterns so far this
year. It is important to note that weights of all livestock are well above a
year ago. Year-to-year increases in dressed weights are normal and are being
reinforced by expensive feeder animal prices and low feedstuff costs.
Sometimes in the past this situation has caused market problems in the late
summer months, especially for slaughter cattle and lamb prices. Slaughter steer and heifer dressed weights have recently put in their seasonal lows and will increase from now well into the fall quarter. For the week ending May 7th, Federally Inspected (FI) dressed steer weights were 788 pounds, up 13 pounds from a year earlier and from the prior 5-year average (1999-2003). Nationally, weekly steer weights bottomed in mid April (780 pounds), a little earlier than normal. Heifer dressed weights bottomed in late April, in early May were 9 and 4 pounds above a year ago and the prior 5-year average, respectively. USDA live weight data for the Texas/Oklahoma panhandle showed that in mid-May slaughter cattle were 30 pounds heavier than a year ago and had set a seasonal low in early April. Barrow and gilt dressed weights have recently begun to decline and will set seasonal lows this summer. For the week ending May 7th, FI barrow and gilt dressed weights averaged 198 pounds, versus 200 pounds in early April. Recent weights were about 3 pounds above a year ago and 5 pounds heavier than the prior 5-year average. Slaughter lamb weights were mostly near a year ago for the first four months of 2005. Seasonally, dressed weights should begin to decline in the next few weeks and reach annual lows this summer. In early May, FI lamb and yearling dressed weights were 74 pounds, compared to 71 pounds last year and a prior 5-year average of 69 pounds. |
|
Synchronizing Estrus in Gilts
Dr. Tim Safranski, State Swine Breeding
Specialist |
|
The beef cattle industry has utilized several tools and developed infinite combinations of these tools to synchronize estrus in heifers and cows. This is done primarily to facilitate use of artificial insemination. Current estimates are that up to 10% of U.S. beef cows are mated by AI. Comparatively little time, effort or money has been spent on synchronizing estrus in pigs. About 80% of sows in the U.S. are mated AI. There are some obvious reasons for this discrepancy; such as we farrow sows year-round, while most beef cattle operations try to coordinate calving and forage production; weaning at 21 days works to effectively synchronize estrus in sows etc. The U.S. market now has two tools to synchronize estrus in gilts. The only legal method for sows is still weaning. One method for gilts works before they reach puberty, and the other is for cycling gilts. This article will not discuss some other methods that require extra label use of drugs and veterinary prescription. Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH) is the primary hormone responsible for initiating follicular growth. Luteinizing Hormone (LH) is associated with ovulation. Scientists have been able to time injections of these hormones to prepubertal gilts and initiate growth and ovulation of follicles. A compound isolated from horse urine (pregnant mare’s serum gonadotropin, or PMSG) acts much like FSH when given to gilts. A compound isolated from the urine of pregnant women (human chorionic gonadotropin, or hCG) acts much like LH. The combination of 400 units of PMSG and 200 units of hCG has been marketed for several years under the trade name PG-600. When the appropriate dose of PG-600 is given to prepubertal gilts it will induce estrus and ovulation. PG-600 has proven to be a very useful tool on farms willing to take the time to learn how to manage it. Given to gilts that are already cycling PG-600 will not work to induce fertile estrus, so for years there has not been a tool available to synchronize estrus in cyclic gilts. In 2003 an answer to that dilemma was provided when a synthetic progestin, under the trade name Matrix, was approved by the FDA for use in gilts. It is available through your veterinarian. In cyclic gilts the progesterone from the CL on the ovaries is what prevents them from exhibiting estrus. After the CL regresses and progesterone levels drop she will again express estrus at 21 day intervals. When pregnant the sow receives a message from the baby pigs to keep the CL, successfully preventing cycling in pregnant sows. Matrix is an orally active compound that acts like progesterone and prevents follicular growth and cycling as long as it is being fed. In cyclic gilts Matrix can be fed for 14 days, and estrus will follow in 4-9 days after withdrawal of the product. Gilts can be mated at the synchronized estrus with good fertility. Fed to gilts that are not yet cycling this product will not result in synchronized fertile estrus. These are the two methods of synchronizing estrus in gilts that are approved. Because one works only in prepubertal gilts, and one in cyclic gilts the producer must know the reproductive status of gilts to effectively use either compound. Each product has some characteristics that may have limited uptake. To be successful with PG-600 we must know that the gilts are prepubertal, but that they are at an age and weight where they are capable of cycling. This means that heat detection is initiated and age at puberty determined for gilts on their farm. PG-600 can then be given immediately prior to ‘normal’ puberty to stimulate and synchronize estrus. Another use of PG-600 has been to induce estrus in gilts that are the last to cycle within a group. In this scenario heat detection has been performed because the gilts are eligible to be bred, but a portion of them have not cycled. The caveat here is that there are a proportion of late cycling gilts that may be best shipped rather than bred when one considers lifetime productivity. Matrix works to induce tight synchronization of fertile estrus in gilts that are cyclic. It is delivered in an oil, and care must be taken to avoid exposure to the skin, especially by women of childbearing age. It is topdressed on the feed, and it is imperative that each gilt receives her full dose daily. Failure to receive a full dose has been shown to result in a higher frequency of follicular cysts. While having only two compounds available to synchronize estrus in gilts pales in comparison to the number available to cattle producers, each can be used with high success rates. As with any production technology it is up to the producer to fine tune application for a specific production system and to compare the cost of using the products versus the cost of not using them. |
|
* PRESS RELEASE * *
PRESS RELEASE * * PRESS RELEASE * HAWKS ANNOUNCES LMAAP EXTENSION AT ASI CONVENTION For More Information Contact: |
|
The popular retained ewe-lamb program was part of the Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance package (LMAAP) that ended in 2003. To assist the sheep industry, USDA offered a program to encourage ewe-lamb replacement and retention. Unfortunately, extreme drought conditions that reduced pasture carrying capacity and the lack of availability of forage caused many producers to be reluctant or unable to participate in this program during the initial time period. Guy Flora, ASI president, acknowledged the enormous value of this announcement. “This initiative has been a priority for ASI. We believe we have stabilized the U.S. sheep breeding herd and now have an opportunity to expand it with the ewe-lamb program as a key component,” said Flora. “The ewe-lamb extension will go a long way in assisting producers with the task of flock recovery as well as adapt to the considerable structural changes in domestic markets over the last few years. We applaud the Administration’s efforts to extend this program, which benefits the entire industry from farm to processor,” concluded Flora. The industry thanks the following U.S. Senators and Representatives who strongly endorsed the extension. They include: Sens. Craig Thomas (R-WY), Max Baucus (D-MT), Conrad Burns (R-MT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Larry Craig (R-ID), Michael Crapo (R-ID), Thomas Daschle (D-SD), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Robert Bennett (R-UT),Tim Johnson (D-SD), James Jeffords (I-VT), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Patty Murray (D-WA), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), George Allen (R-VA), Michael Enzi (R-WY), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and John Cornyn (R-TX) along with Reps. Bill Thomas (R-CA), Henry Bonilla (R-TX), Charles Stenholm (D-TX), Dennis Rehberg (R-MT), Butch Otter (R-ID) and Mike Simpson (R-ID). Producers will be notified about the particulars of the program by local Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices when details are finalized and offices are prepared to accept and process applications. ASI is a national
organization supported by 41 state sheep associations, benefiting the
interests of nearly 64,000 sheep producers. |
|
National
System for Animal ID Closer to Reality |
|
A national animal identification plan is being developed to help protect American animal agriculture. State animal health officials, livestock industry groups and the federal government are working together to finalize the plan. They hope to have Phase One of the plan, Premises ID, in place by July 2004. This phase would require that standardized premises identification numbers be established for all production operations, markets, assembly points, exhibitions and processing plants. Once the Premises ID systems are in place, the plan will proceed to Phase Two, which calls for individual identification for cattle in commerce. Other food animal and livestock species would require all animals that enter commerce to be identified through individual or group/lot identification. Phase Two would be in place by the beginning of 2006. The goal is to develop a national standardized program that has the capability to identify all premises and animals that had direct contact with a foreign animal disease within 48 hours of its discovery. This goal may require that certain data be housed in a central database. States, industry and the USDA have been working in partnership on the plan through the National Animal Identification Development Team. The team, which includes a steering committee and five working groups, has produced a draft plan with the working name of the U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP). It carries the tagline “Protecting American Animal Agriculture. “The development of a national identification plan has been worked on for several years, but the recent BSE experience in Canada has reinforced the need for the U.S. to introduce a national plan as soon as practically possible,” said Neil Hammerschmidt, Chief Operating Officer of the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium and co-chair of the development team’s steering committee. “A national plan which IDs all food animals and livestock will allow the U.S. to identify any animals exposed to disease and will facilitate stopping the spread of that disease,” said Glenn Slack, president and CEO of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA). “This will help protect American animal agriculture form the devastating effects that might occur in the event of a case of BSE, foot and mouth disease or other deleterious disease ever being discovered in the U.S.” The draft plan draws on existing voluntary and compulsory animal identification programs currently in place in the U.S. and coordinate these into a truly national program for the first time. Details are still to be finalized, but the development team expects to complete its work within the next 60 days. It is expected that the plan will then be open to review and comment by industry stakeholders. “Maintaining the health of the U.S. animal herd is the most urgent issue for the industry and is the focus of the draft plan,” said Hammerschmidt. “The benefits of a national animal health identification system include enhanced disease control and eradication capabilities, rapid containment of foreign animal disease outbreaks and enhanced ability to respond to threats to biosecurity.” “A national system would also provide benefits to industry in terms of market access and consumer demands,” said Slack. “Source and process verification are gaining consumer momentum, providing producers with an added value opportunity. Also, livestock and animal products from the U.S. are highly marketable worldwide. Assuring animal traceability through animal identification adds value to the product.” “Furthermore, as more retailers and consumers demand source-verified systems, the ability of producers to sell their products to these markets might depend on the ability to trace animals to the farm of origin,” said Slack. “Other countries have already developed systems that are being used as technical barrier to trade. These systems are rapidly becoming the world standard. The U.S. needs to be consistent with the animal tracking systems of its international trading partners to avoid the loss of international markets.” “As recently as 1995, nearly nine million calves were identified with orange brucellosis vaccination ear tags,” said Hammerschmidt. “That number represented slightly less than one fourth of all the newborn claves or about 45 percent of all female calves (only females are vaccinated). Today, fewer than four million claves are vaccinated (10 percent of total calves, 20 percent of females). The U.S. is very close to declaring itself free form brucellosis. The level of vaccination will continue to decrease, if not cease entirely. The identification of claves to the farm of origin will be minimal in two to three years.” “Without identification, our livestock industries would be vulnerable to any disease situation that required rapid tracking of animal movement,” said Hammerschmidt. The draft plan follows 18 months of intensive work by state, industry and USDA. In early 2002, NIAA’s Animal Identification and Information System Committee organized an NIAA task force comprised of approximately 100 representatives of more than 30 stakeholder groups. After months of work, the task force produced the National Identification Work Plan (NIWP). That plan was presented at the NIAA ID/INFO EXPO in Chicago in July 2002. The final draft of the NIWP was then presented to the U.S. Animal Health Association (USAHA) at its annual meeting in October 2002. The USAHA accepted the plan with a resolution calling for USDA/APHIS/VS, to establish a National Animal Identification Team composed of state, industry and federal partners to further develop a national plan, using the NIWP as a guide.” With this charge, APHIS/VS identified key industry leaders to serve as the team’s Steering Committee. These steering committee members then selected members of five working groups, including Communication, Transition, Standards, Governance and Information Technology. An official Website containing details of the draft plan, background information, Frequently Asked Questions and Answers about the proposed plan and provision for comments about the plan is currently under construction. An announcement as to the Website address will be made shortly. |
| USDA Press Release No. 0166.03 |
|
|
| “I have spoken with Canada’s
Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Lyle Vanclief a short time ago about
Canada’s investigation and feel that all appropriate measures are
being taken in what appears to be an isolated case of bovine spongiform
encephalophathy. Information suggests that risk to human health and the
possibility of transmission to animals in the United States is very
low. “USDA is placing Canada under its BSE restriction guidelines and will not accept any ruminants or ruminant products from Canada pending further investigation. We are dispatching a technical team to Canada to assist in the investigation and will provide more detailed information as it becomes available.” “The United States remains diligent in its BSE surveillance and prevention efforts. In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration prohibited the use of most mammalian protein in the manufacture of animal feed intended for cows and other ruminants to stop the way the disease is thought to spread. “Since 1989, the U.S. government has taken a series of preventive actions to protect against this animal disease. This includes USDA prohibitions on the import of live ruminants, such as cattle, sheep, goats and most ruminant products from countries that have or are considered to be at risk for having BSE. “In fiscal year 2002, USDA tested 19,990 cattle for BSE using a targeted surveillance approach designed to test the highest risk animals, including downer animals (animals that are non-ambulatory at slaughter), animals that die on the farm, older animals and animals exhibiting signs of neurological distress.” # |
|
Pat Guinan's Weather
& Climate Report |
As of April 8, 2003, the drought still persists over much of northern and west central Missouri. There have been improvements over southwestern Missouri due to numerous snow events this past winter and above normal precipitation in February. Additionally, periodic precipitation events in March over northeastern, central, and southern Missouri have contributed in decreasing the coverage of the current drought. Unfortunately, drought conditions have continued to deteriorate over west central and northern Missouri, especially over north central and northwestern sections. Despite a notable rain event during the middle of March in the drought region, deficits continue to accumulate across most of northwestern and north central Missouri. Some locations in northwestern Missouri have gone 10 consecutive months with below normal precipitation. Since June 2002, 10-month precipitation deficits were approaching or exceeding 16", or just over 40% of normal for several communities in northwestern Missouri including St. Joseph and Kansas City. There have been numerous reports in northwestern Missouri of residents hauling water for themselves and/or their livestock due to low water levels in wells and empty ponds. According to the Missouri Agricultural Statistics Service, subsoil moisture supplies were reported to be 98% short to very short in the northwest district. The north central and west central districts were reporting 94% and 93% subsoil shortages respectively. Rivers and streams in northern Missouri are at low water levels experienced in one out of every 10 years. Lake and reservoir levels are also well below normal. One of the lakes associated with the Grindstone Reservoir in Cameron, MO is estimated to have only a 77-day supply of obtainable water. It is imperative that a wetter regime establish itself across northern and western Missouri over the next several weeks in order to begin replenishing water supplies above and below the ground. If not, more impacts will be felt with the advance of the growing season and hotter temperatures. The latest outlook issued by the Climate Prediction Center reveals a lot of uncertainty in terms of the expectation of rainfall for Missouri. Currently, the outlook for April calls for equal chances of above, below, and near normal precipitation. Equal chances also exist for above, below, and near normal precipitation for the combined months of April, May, and June. With this sort of forecast, the best forecasting tool to use is climatology. Climatologically speaking, spring is the wet season for much of Missouri, especially for northern and central sections of the state. April precipitation is more than double what usually falls in February. And May and June are the wettest two consecutive months for much of the state. In fact, for northern Missouri, as much as 35% of the normal annual rainfall occurs during May, June and July. So, climatologically, the best opportunity to put a dent in this drought will come during these months. This is precisely what happened during June and July of 2000. In May of 2000, northwestern and south central Missouri were experiencing severe to extreme drought conditions. There was little moisture in the soil profile at this time, and it was timely June and July rains that sustained the crop through the growing season. This year, as like most years, it is very difficult to estimate how much rain will fall this spring and summer. Inevitably, hot temperatures with longer days will arrive which will increase the evaporation rates over bodies of water and soils, but rainfall norms are also highest during this time of year. In the short term, the signs are encouraging. Over the past few weeks, a stormier weather pattern has established itself over the central United States. Portions of northern Missouri have seen more precipitation over the past 3 weeks, than over the past 5 months preceding this wet period. The latest outlook for next week forecasts another strong storm system to move out of the southern Plains as early as next Tuesday and bring another round of widespread showers and thunderstorms to the region. |
Alaska trip a glimpse into cattle 'evolution' in absence of humans |
by Trent Loos on 2/25/03 for www.meatingplace.com |
Editor's note: The following story of an encounter with an herd of Alaskan cattle that have been isolated for more than 100 years from any human contact was written by Trent Loos, a pro-industry activist, writer and radio personality whose "Loos Tales" livestock and meat-related commentaries are broadcast on the Brownfield Radio Network. What would cattle be like without human intervention? I recently had an interesting adventure that allowed me to assess the impact of modern beef-industry selection practices, compared with those of Mother Nature. The journey -- and the results -- were fascinating. It started with a phone call from Tim Jacobson, an Alaskan who needed help on a project taking place on Chirkoff Island, which is 33,000 acres out in the Pacific Ocean about 400 miles southwest of Anchorage. Jacobsen, who had been on the island most of the summer, was spearheading a round-up of "wild" cattle on the island. How is that possible? The answer requires a bit of history. In 1888, the Russian government placed about 300 head of native Russian cattle, fox and parka squirrels on Chirkoff Island to develop a self-sustaining penal colony. The colony never materialized, but a century later, there are more than 1,000 cattle, which now are being removed so that the island can be converted into a bird sanctuary. That's the project Jacobson had to tackle, and I jumped at the opportunity to witness it firsthand. The visit introduced me to the most fascinating environment I've ever known in my lifetime in production agriculture. Human vs. bovine survival I flew into Anchorage in southern Alaska, then took a small commuter plane to Kodiak Island, which is east of the Aleutian chain of islands yet still more than 600 miles west of Juneau, Alaska's mainland capital. Every single person I encountered along the way warned me that no human could survive on Chirkoff. Nevertheless, from Kodiak Island, we flew a small floatplane to Chirkoff Island, where Jacobson was to meet me. The pilot circled the entire island before we landed to signal our arrival, and then we touched down on a small lake. There was no sign of human life. The pilot appeared nervous. "I told him [Jacobson] that if he doesn't get some form of communication out here, somebody's going to hurt," he said, "and nobody will ever know." Finally, in the distance we heard the approach of the only form of transportation available on the island: a four-wheel ATV. In a few minutes, a guy I had only spoken with twice on the phone was standing in front of me with a rifle strapped to his back and blood all over his face. "Welcome to Shangri-la," Tim said. The pilot told us he would be back in three days -- "or as soon as the weather would allow" -- and waded out to the plane. He took off, leaving us to fend for ourselves. I was excited to see these "man-killing wild cows." Chirkoff Island is rough terrain, but we used the beach as a highway and then selected certain spots to venture into the interior of the island. My first animal encounter on that "highway" turned out to be a dead sperm whale that had washed up on the beach. Later, when I spotted the first set of cows -- about 100 head -- they heard the ATV coming and promptly turned and charged. It didn't seem like a good time for me to introduce their first animal husbandry lesson, so I got out of Dodge as fast as that little Honda could boogie. Words cannot describe the feeling I had at that moment. Thankfully, upon further investigation, it turned out that the cows were just curious. The mature size of the cattle was bigger than I had imaged. I estimated that the cows averaged about 1,200 pounds each. Nearly 70 percent of them had calved in the past 45 days; just a few had calved in the fall. The importance of calving ease was spelled out in bold letters in this "all-natural" selection process. I sorted off three calves to examine. They all weighed 45 pounds, and by visually appraising the others, I estimated that there was no more than a five-pound variation in birth weight among the rest of the calves. But the most impressive single trait was the udders on these cows. We work hard at selecting for good udders in commercial herds, but every single cow on this island had a picture-perfect udder. The bulls, which made up about half of the herd, were not to be trusted. Even at 100 yards, the thrill of observing and photographing these bovine patriarchs was spine-tingling. The bull hierarchies were particularly interesting. Each group of about 35 cows had one bull with them and two young bulls circling them. In fall and winter, the bulls gather into three groups, but during breeding season they are very territorial. Most of the bulls appeared to be in the 1,600 to 1,800-pound range. Their bodies resembled buffalo, with deep rib cages and not much hindquarters (see photo below). The few cows that would be considered impressive in phenotype tended to be the ones not nursing a calf. A unique education One cannot possibly visit a world like Chirkoff Island without wondering how marketing pressures have influenced our breeding decisions in the commercial beef industry. Granted, the selection process on Chirkoff was totally related to survivability, without any regard for the ultimate reason we produce cattle: consumable protein. Nonetheless, I was quite impressed with the "survival of the fittest" selection process. The Chirkoff herd obviously reflects a remarkable job of selection of traits related to utilization of natural resources. At this point, their efficient use of natural resources is far superior to the typical cattle herd in today's beef industry. These few words can't properly describe what I witnessed on that island, but I know it would be educational for beef breeders if they could experience this natural selection process, as I was fortunate enough to do. After our visit on the island was completed, we stood on the beach where the plane was to land, hoping the pilot would actually show up. After two hours of waiting, we caught the first noise other than bellowing bulls that we had heard in three days. The plane arrived to take me home from what can only be described as the "The Last Frontier" and a unique education in genetic selection. Photo caption: A close-up of the cattle on Alaska's Chirkoff Island that have roamed the isolated terrain undisturbed by humans for more than a century. |
The
Latest on Large Groups
by
Dr. Tim Safranski (573) 884-7994 and
Dr. Joe Zulovich (573) 882-2731
Production technologies and practices often change over time. Sometimes they change gradually, and sometimes more abruptly. Occasionally, especially with abrupt changes, they leave us wondering why we didn’t think of that sooner.
As long as pigs have been raised indoors we have wondered what should be the optimal number of pigs per pen. Certainly housing finishing pigs as individuals is cost prohibitive. Research has suggested that pigs housed in large groups have a greater level of aggression. Most production systems have settled on group sizes of about 25 pigs.
Historically, research data has shown that young pigs in large groups show a reduced feed intake. The same phenomenon was not seen with bigger pigs, and investigators concluded that was because they adapt behaviorally to maintain feed intake, while the younger pigs do not change their feeding behavior.
In the May 2001 issue of the Journal of Animal Science researchers from the University of Illinois and United Feeds (Wolter et al., 2001) reported the results of their most recent study on group size. The project compared the effects of various group sizes on growth, feed efficiency and carcass characteristics. Fourteen-hundred pigs were weaned between 15-19 days of age averaging 13 pounds. They were moved to a wean-finish facility and housed in eight pens each of 25, 50 or 100 head. Regardless of group size, all pigs were provided 7.3 square feet. Two nipples and three feeder holes were provided per 25 head, and a 10 diet phase feeding program was used for the mixed sex pigs.
These scientists had observed reduced performance in large groups through eight weeks post-weaning in earlier studies, and some of that was repeated in this trial. Specifically, at the end of the first eight weeks, pigs in pens of 25 averaged 76.7 pounds, while pigs in pens of 50 and 100 averaged 74.7 pounds. In this particular trial they did not observe differences in feed intake, but the poorer daily gain was because of poorer feed conversion. Interestingly, by the time the pigs were slaughtered, there were no longer differences in weights, feed intakes or feed conversions. They also measured the carcass composition and found no differences among treatment groups. Liveweight at slaughter averaged about 278 pounds , with a 209 pound average carcass weight. The lean percentage for the three groups ranged from 53.4 to 53.8%, and was not statistically different among groups.
The conclusion of the authors was that pigs could be successfully housed in groups from 25 to 100 pigs per pen without detrimental effects. The effective or usable space per pig is slightly higher in large groups because of how the large group pens are arranged. Large group pens often have the feeder and water access located in the center, and this arrangement enables more pigs to rest and sleep around the perimeter of the pen and not be disturbed when a few pigs want to eat or drink. The percentage of pigs removed from the pens of 25 for health reasons was higher than in the larger group sizes, but the authors suggested that was due to chance. Overall mortality was not different, and ranged from 1-3%. The level of care during this project probably helped to assure success. To make large groups work effectively, the caretaker must be diligent at observing each pig daily for signs of illness in order to stop problems early. For example, if I need to observe 200 animals, it is easier for me to observe 20 pens of ten pigs than one pen of 200 pigs.
The concept of larger group sizes is compelling, and may help to reduce facility costs in some situations. Housing pigs in large groups will necessitate very good husbandry skills, and can make the treatment or sorting of individual animals more challenging.
Wolter, Ellis, Curtis, Augspurger, Hamilton, Parr and Webel. 2001. Effect of group size on pig performance in a wean-to-finish production system. Journal of Animal Science, 79: 1067-1073.
IBP Responds
to New Missouri Livestock Marketing Law
Dr. Don Smith
Farm Management Specialist
According to a press release from IBP, Inc. dated May 25, 2001, a new Missouri law is forcing the Meat Packer to limit the way it buys cattle and hogs in the state. Company officials said Missouri's Livestock Marketing law, which took effect Tuesday, May 29, requires
Meat Packers to pay the same prices for livestock they buy and to make the prices public.
The regulations are part of the Missouri Livestock Marketing Law found in the Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 277. Sections 277.203, 277.206, and 277.215 are among those pertaining to the new law. These may be viewed on the State of Missouri Revised Statute web site at http://www.moga.state.mo.us.homestat.htm .
In it’s announcement the firm claims the law is very vague, making it unclear how packers are supposed to comply and avoid severe penalties for violations. As a result, officials stated “beginning May 29, IBP will no longer be able to negotiate with Missouri producers on a cash market price for their cattle and hogs before slaughter. Instead the company will only buy livestock for IBP slaughter on a grade and yield basis, with one fixed base price each day.” Because of this the final price producers receive for their livestock will not be known until after slaughter, when the animal's carcass value is determined.
"While our buyers do an excellent job estimating the value of the livestock they buy, this vague and confusing new law opens the door for legal challenges by producers alleging they have not been offered enough, according to Gene Leman, chief executive officer-IBP Fresh Meats. "For example, the law ignores how quickly the market can change due to supply and demand and other factors such as weather, while forcing the packer to pay one price regardless of changing market conditions.”
One option would have been to end the purchase of any Missouri livestock. Instead, the company decided to buy only on a grade and yield basis until there is further clarification of this law.
As a result of this decision IBP now offers one base price to all Missouri producers each day with the final payment they receive determined by the quality of the beef or pork carcass. Carcass quality is gauged by a USDA grader in the company's fed beef plants and by an electronic carcass evaluation system in the company's pork facilities.
According to the Missouri Department of Agriculture livestock market auctions are exempt of the law. However, IBP takes a conservative interpretation toward public auctions in the state. They see the law as essentially forcing packers out of public auctions in Missouri, since it appears to eliminate livestock bidding. Therefore IBP will only buy cattle and hogs directly from livestock producers.
The law states packers must publicly report prices but not the identities of the sellers. IBP believes the law requires that any difference in price must be made available to all other producers. If this is not done, the packer is subject to legal action.
According to information provided by IBP the packer has eleven hog buyers and five cattle buyers who purchase Missouri livestock. The company operates 12 hog buying stations in the state. Company officials estimate less than 3% of the livestock they buy for IBP plants are purchased in Missouri.
For more information on this or other subjects visit the University Extension Center in your county, or call me, Dr. Don Smith, at (660) 727-3339.
 |
University of Missouri Extension |
 |
||