U.S. Beef Industry Risks Big Export Losses

CATEGORY: Weekly Industry Update | Permalink | Posted on: February 3rd, 2016

In 2015, Japan and Australia signed an economic partnership agreement that provides significant tariff reductions for Australian beef to be imported into Japan. The Japan-Australia Partnership Agreement (JAEPA) is to be phased in over a 15 year period and could result in the U.S. Beef Industry losing up to $100 million in beef exports to Japan. This is all according to a report issued by the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) titled, “Tariff Reforms and the Competitiveness of U.S. Beef in Japan”.

The report notes that the ground beef market in Japan is overwhelmingly supplied by Australian frozen beef trimmings. However, export of beef offal to Japan is primarily product from the U.S. The report also noted that both U.S. and Australian beef whole muscle cuts are strongly competitive in the Japanese market.

The USDA ERS report states that, “Assuming that no other events intervene to influence trade, the scenario indicates that imports of Australian beef would rise by $100 million over baseline values, while imports of U.S. beef would fall by about $100 million,” the report concluded.

The report did say that if Japan were to open up its beef market to the U.S. similar to its agreement with Australia, then beef exports from the U.S. to Japan would be expected to increase with a net gain of $130 million for the U.S. Beef Industry.

Currently, Japan is only able to supply less than 40% of its total consumer beef demand through domestically produced beef. This primarily comes from Wagyu beef cattle, Holstein dairy cattle, and a cross between Wagyu and Holstein. The Japanese beef market is highly segmented with high priced Wagyu beef being offered at the high end and hamburgers at the low end.

The Japanese beef market is similar to the U.S. beef market with everything from high end cuts (Wagyu vs. USDA Prime) to low end cuts (Lean Australian Grass Fed Beef vs. USDA Low Select and Standard) to ground beef. The primary difference is that the offal market, particularly related to beef organ meats and tongue, is much more highly developed in Japan.

In 2015, the U.S. Beef Industry saw beef exports decrease more than 18% over the year prior and beef imports into the U.S. increase by more than 33%. That is certainly a direct threat to overall revenue and net profits within the U.S. Beef Industry and bears our attention. Beef production in other countries of the world is increasing and their ability to supply countries such as Japan, Korea, China, and the EU will continue to grow. For the U.S. beef producer to remain viable and profitable, more attention will have to be devoted to development of our own domestic consumer market share and the expansion of U.S. consumer tastes for cuts from the entire carcass and the organ meats.

---

Grass Fed Beef Delivery

CATEGORY: Weekly Industry Update | Permalink | Posted on: December 10th, 2015

A fledgling company, ButcherBox, has just launched a new grass fed beef delivery service that will allow consumers to place orders online and receive delivery of grass fed beef items direct to the doorstep. The company raised the funds needed to launch a full website through the social media fundraiser “Kickstarter”. They were able to raise more than $240,000 to get things started.

According to Mike Salguero, Founder of ButcherBox, the intent is to make grass fed beef “conveniently accessible to consumers across the nation”. He states that “only 1% of total beef produced in the United States is 100% grass fed and farms that produce 100% grass fed beef lack the resources necessary to advertise and distribute their beef”.

Mr. Salguero is not quite correct in his grass fed beef market share estimates as total market share in the U.S. for grass fed beef now totals about 7%. However, this is a combination of both domestically produced product and imported product. In 2015, there were about 225,000 head of grass fed beef harvested in the U.S. with a retail value exceeding $550 million. Another $2 billion+ of grass fed beef was imported into the U.S. from Australia, New Zealand, and South America. There are also numerous E-Commerce websites that allow consumers to purchase grass fed beef for direct home delivery. These include websites for individual farmers and ranchers to websites for branded programs that purchase grass finished cattle from individual producers and offer pre-portioned items on their sites.

ButcherBox offers monthly subscription services so the customers can order “kits” that contain various cuts of “specially curated” grass fed beef. The kits are shipped monthly for a subscription price of $129 per month.

This company can easily be confused with The Butcher Box, another monthly subscription company offering a variety of specialty meat items on a monthly basis.

The ButcherBox website ( www.getbutcherbox.com ) does not provide information on where they source their grass fed beef. No farmers are featured on the site and discussion of grass fed beef and it’s benefits are rather generic. The site also does not provide information on the quality grade of the beef products (degree of finish), nor what specific items are provided in the “kit”. It would be nice, as a consumer, to be provided with much more detail on the farms, farm families, processing, and quality and consistency of their products.

---

Hormone Use in Beef Cattle May Create Environmental Exposure

CATEGORY: Weekly Industry Update | Permalink | Posted on: June 1st, 2015

A recent study conducted by scientists at Indiana University, the University of Iowa, and the University of Washington, purports that there are long term environmental effects related to the use of growth-promoting hormones typically used in beef production in the U.S. The study concentrated on the environmental effect of trenbolone acetate (TBA), a synthetic analogue of testosterone that is frequently used to promote weight gain and lean muscle mass development in beef cattle. More than 50% of all beef cattle produced in the U.S. are administered TBA or one of five other commonly used growth hormones approved for use in animal agriculture.

The research findings indicate that TBA may persist in the environment at high concentrations and for long periods of time. According to Adam Ward, Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs and lead author of the study, compounds released into the environment can set off a complex series of chemical reactions with unintended consequences. Dr. Ward states, “When compounds react in a way we don’t anticipate – when they convert between species, when they persist after we thought they were gone – this challenges our regulatory system”.

TBA is a growth hormone that is typically implanted just under the skin in the ears of beef cattle. The cattle then metabolize the trenbolone acetate to make 17-alpha-trenbolone which acts as an endocrine disruptor. The recent study found that the 17-alpha-trenbolone can make its way into streams and rivers when manure from feedlots or land applications washes into the watershed.

The 17-alpha-trenbolone compound tends to rapidly break down when exposed to sunlight, which led scientists and regulators to assume a very low environmental risk. However, a 2013 study found that the chemicals in the breakdown products reverted back to 17-alpha-trenbolone in the dark. So instead of permanent removal from the environment when exposed to sunlight, the compound persists in stream environments by returning to its original form overnight in the hyporheic zones of streams.

The conclusions from the study are that TBA metabolites may be 35% higher in our streams than previously thought and may persist longer than thought, resulting in 50% more biological exposure in aquatic ecosystems. Their study also indicates that even low concentrations of TBA metabolites, as endocrine disruptors, can have significant disruptive effects on aquatic life. According to Ward, “These compounds have the potential to disrupt entire ecosystems by altering reproductive cycles in many species, including fish. We expect impacts that extend through the aquatic food web”.

The researchers state that their study exposes a weakness in the American system of regulating hazardous substances. They indicate that the current regulatory system focuses on individual compounds and often fails to account for the more complex chemical reactions that often occur in the environment.

The study is published in Nature Communications and was funded by the National Science Foundation and the USDA. It is available online under the title, “Coupled Reversion and Stream-Hyporheic Exchange Processes Increase Environmental Persistence of Trenbolone Metabolites”.

News Headlines
In other pertinent news, there are several issues impacting agriculture in the U.S. First, Monsanto has been making overtures that it wants to purchase the Swiss agrochemicals firm Syngenta, which makes an array of agricultural chemicals that use many different active chemical compounds. This is seen as a move away from glyphosate by Monsanto. The popular herbicide, Roundup (active ingredient is glyphosate), has been used for decades by farmers in the U.S. and globally. Since its introduction in 1974, Roundup has been used extensively due to ease of use and the marketing push that there was no longer a need for chemical cocktails with the use of glyphosate. The heavy use of Roundup has resulted in a number of glyphosate-resistant weeds that are now prevalent in row crop fields. In 2014, Roundup sales brought in $5 billion for Monsanto, or about one third of their total revenue. Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, and BASF have been actively developing options to glyphosate. To read more go to:
https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/markets_sectors/news/story.jhtml?storyid=201505221331RTRSNEWSCOMBINED_L1N0YC1ZC_1&provider;=RTRSNEWS&product;=COMBINED&category;=agri&sourcePage;=article&gic;=

Secondly, China is proposing further changes to their regulatory process for approving additional GMO crops for import into China or use in China. These amendments to Chinese regulations on GMO crops are in response to ongoing consumer concern over contamination of conventional foods with GMOs. China is the world’s largest importer of soybeans and has been taking longer to approve new GMO strains due to public misgivings about GMO food. It took more than five years for China to approve the MIR162 GMO Strain of corn produced by Syngenta and more than seven years to approve LL55 Liberty Link soybeans produced by Bayer. In 2014, prior to the approval of MIR162, Chinese ports rejected more than 1.4 million tons of U.S. corn containing the unapproved strain.

https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/markets_sectors/news/story.jhtml?storyid=201505220013RTRSNEWSCOMBINED_L3N0Y92J9_1&provider;=RTRSNEWS&product;=COMBINED&category;=agri&sourcePage;=article&gic;=

---

Major Food Trends for 2015

CATEGORY: Weekly Industry Update | Permalink | Posted on: May 1st, 2015

The Institute of Food Technologists recently published the results of their Top Food Trends for 2015 study. The results were published in the April 2015 edition of Food Technology magazine. Major findings from the study cite a continued erosion of the traditional family meal, more snacking throughout the day, and more marinated meat and poultry dishes.

Significant findings from the study show that consumers want more fresh foods with 90% indicating that fresh foods are healthier, 80% stating that fresh foods are more tasty, and 78% indicating they are trying to consume more fresh foods as compared to processed foods. In addition, consumers are snacking more between meals with an average of three between meal snacks in 2014. According to consumer response, healthy snack foods are becoming an important factor.

Quick to prepare meals continue to be popular with consumers. Meals that are prepared in 20 minutes or less, one-pot meals and meals prepared using marinated meats and poultry have increased more than 25% in the last 5 years. In addition, packaged meal kits, and oven bake meals are all quite popular. However, in spite of the increase in quick-prepared meals, family meal time continues to diminish with only 27% of “family meals” including the children.

Breakfast is becoming the most popular meal of the day with consumers eating breakfast an average of five days a week. Consumers surveyed stated that eating breakfast gave them more energy and mental focus and helped them maintain a healthy weight. Interestingly, ethnic flavors for breakfast are increasingly popular. This includes things such as manchego, chutney, chimichurri, and chipotle flavors.

Consumers are also seeking more sophisticated food experiences. This includes unique flavors and culinary trends such as pickling, fermenting, fire-roasting and smoked foods. In addition to the flavor aspect consumers also want more local foods and beverages, along with more choices in organic, natural and non-GMO foods. The survey found that in 2014 consumers purchased 28% more organic products, 25% more natural products, and 23% more non-GMO products when compared to the year prior.

Consumers are now including more meat alternatives in their diets with eggs being one of the most popular meat alternatives. Food restrictions, intolerances, and food allergies have a greater influence on food purchase choices than ever before with one in 10 shoppers making food purchase decisions based on these issues.

Finally, whole food nutrition is becoming increasingly important with whole grains and non-wheat flours now seen as “hot” culinary ingredients. Non-wheat flours include flour made from peanuts, millet, barley, and rice. Ethnic flours from fufu, teff, and cassava are also popular.

---

Surprise: Flavor Drives Nutrition

CATEGORY: Weekly Industry Update | Permalink | Posted on: April 14th, 2015

Mark Schatzker, one of our featured speakers at the upcoming 2015 Grass Fed Exchange Conference, recently published an editorial piece in the Wall Street Journal titled “How Flavor Drives Nutrition”. Mark is a well-known Food & Travel writer and author of the book Steak: One Man’s Search for the World’s Tastiest Piece of Beef. Mark has just authored a second book that will be released on May 5, 2015 titled, The Dorito Effect: The Surprising New Truth About Food & Flavor.

Mark states that “for nearly a half century, America has been on a witch hunt to find the ingredient that is making us fat. In the 1980s, the culprit was fat itself. Next it was carbs. Today, sugar is the enemy – unless you’re caught up in the war on gluten”.

Mark goes on to point out that none of our attempts at fighting obesity have worked as the percent of the American population characterized as Overweight and Obese has continue to rise. He surmises that the reason we are losing the “war on obesity” is because we are missing “a crucial piece of the food puzzle”. He points out that the diet gurus and government bureaucrats never seem to ask the simple question, “How does our food taste?”.

Mark points out that animals use the senses of taste and smell to identify nutrients crucial to life and that even insects use flavor chemicals to determine whether a potential food is good or is poison. Humans are very similar in that our flavor-sensing genes take up more DNA than any other function of the body. Dr. Fred Provenza, behavioral ecologist and professor emeritus at Utah State University, states that, “Flavor is the body’s way of identifying important nutrients and remembering what foods they come from”.

Mark offers up a unique scientific study that was conducted in1939 in which a group of toddlers had free reign to feed themselves. Every day they were offered an array of 34 “nutritionally diverse whole foods” that included items such as beef, bone jelly, carrots, chicken, grain, bananas, milk, water, etc. Each child had the choice of what to eat and how much to eat. Our first impression would be to state that the toddlers stuffed themselves every day on the foods they found to be the sweetest and avoided the other food items. However, the reverse was quite true – they tended to be drawn to the foods that best nourished them. During growth spurts, they gravitated towards more protein. During periods of high activity, they ate foods that were more dense in carbs and fat.

What is even more astonishing about this study is that when the toddlers were experiencing health challenges they responded by making very specific food choices. During the course of the study there was an outbreak of mononucleosis in the group of toddlers and they consumed more raw beef, carrots, and beets. A child with severe vitamin A deficiency even drank cod liver oil of his own will. I don’t know about you, but I am old enough to remember when cod liver oil was commonly used as a “cure all” for various ailments and commonly forced down children’s throats. I can tell you that I never willingly drank cod liver oil.

At the end of the study the doctors monitoring the health of the toddlers described them as “the finest group of specimens he had ever seen in their age group”. How were they able to do this? Toddlers have not learned about dietary nutrition. They don’t know about fats, carbs, and proteins. They had never seen the USDA Food Pyramid. They simply ate what their body craved and what their body craved tasted good to them.

Mark goes on to point out that a 2006 study that was published in the Journal Science found that the 20 most important flavor compounds found in tomatoes are synthesized from critical nutrients such as omega-3 fats and essential amino acids. The elements that make a tomato nutritious also make it delicious. The authors of the study suggest that “flavor compounds provide important information about the nutritional makeup of foods”.

So, based on the empirical evidence, Mark suggests that for more than 50 years the food we eat has been getting significantly blander. He offers up as evidence, the cardboard taste of tomatoes, strawberries, cucumbers, chicken, pork, and even beef. Yes, beef, the “sacred cow” of protein, has gradually gotten blander over the past several decades. Why? Might it be the lack of nutrient dense foods in their own finishing diet?

What is pertinent to this thread is that a 2004 study published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, found that modern tomatoes have only 50% of the calcium and vitamin A as did tomatoes produced in the 1950s. Mark states that we compound the “nutritional insult” by then drowning the bland food in some type of dressing, seasoning, or sauce.

According to Mark’s research, there are now global corporations that make billions annually from manufacturing synthetic or chemical flavorings to add back to food some semblance of taste or flavor. According to Euromonitor International, a London-based market research company, Americans now consume more than 600 million pounds of synthetic flavorings each year. At the current US population estimate of 320 million, that equals 1.875 pounds of synthetic flavoring for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. each year. So we are at a place where our food is so bland that it takes almost two pounds of chemical flavorings annually to add back the flavor that should be there in the first place. What is so concerning about this is not simply the fact that we are consuming such a large amount of synthetic flavorings each year per capita, but that we are consuming foods that are so lacking in nutrient density that we need the added flavorings. This has much farther reaching implications.

What is Mark’s take on all this? He suggests that the American consumer spend their money of the “good stuff” and not empty, flavor-added calories. By seeking out and purchasing foods with real flavor, the consumer will be voting with their pocketbook and then the free market will respond in kind.

As farmers and ranchers, most of us know how to produce foods with better flavor and greater nutrient density. We just have to realize a profit potential in order to transition to “better” food production. Since farming and ranching is a business and not a non-profit enterprise, the economic incentive needs to be there for more farmers and ranchers to produce nutrient dense foods that are packed with flavor. That economic incentive comes from the consumer, not the government, not the institutions, and not the NGOs. All of the latter can be important from a research funding standpoint, but they do not drive consumer purchase decisions.

To read Mark’s entire Wall Street Journal editorial, you can click on the link below:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-flavor-drives-nutrition-1428596326?tesla=y

– Mark Schatzker’s new book, “The Dorito Effect: The Surprising New Truth About Food and Flavor,” will be published by Simon & Schuster on May 5.

---

Consumers Want Real Foods

CATEGORY: Weekly Industry Update | Permalink | Posted on: March 16th, 2015

Allen R. Williams, Ph.D.

A recent article in Nation’s Restaurant News by Nancy Kruse emphasized that consumers are continuing the trend of demanding “real” foods. Nancy stated that consumers are putting increasing emphasis on their health and diet, maintaining youth and vigor, and seeking to have an impact on improving the environment. This is fueling a demand for what the consumer considers real food. Key components of real foods, as perceived by the consumer, are freshness, seasonal foods, and less processed foods.
Primary concerns are the use of antibiotics, growth promoting hormones, and artificial ingredients and preservatives. This has led to a number of restaurant chains announcing that they are implementing phase outs of foods produced with human antibiotics and growth promoting hormones. This includes recent announcements by Chik-fil-A, McDonald’s, Panera Bread, and others. Carl’s Jr. has introduced an All Natural Grass Fed Beef hamburger with a premium price tag. So far it has tested well in their test markets. If sales reach targeted numbers, then the All Natural Burger will be expanded to more Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s locations.

Consumers are also rethinking the use of foods containing trans fats from hydrogenated vegetable oils. This includes many of the margarine brands currently on the market. They are now moving back towards animal fats as a “real foods” solution. This has benefited butter, lard, and other animal fat use in the diet. Consumption of animal-based fats has sharply increased to a 40 year high. It is interesting to note that the incidence of heart disease and neurological issues, such as various forms of dementia, have increased sharply over the past 40 years with the sudden decrease in the use of animal fats in the diet. Many “Better Burger” concepts and other restaurants have been touting their use of more natural foods, ingredients, and animal fats/butter. For example, Epic Burger is touting buttered buns, Chicago’s Bang is advertising that they “proudly use leaf lard”, Honey Buttered Fried Chicken is using leftover chicken fat for their Schmaltz Smashed Potatoes, and Top Round Roast Beef is cooking their hand-cut fries in 100% beef fat.
Additionally, other protein-rich food sources are becoming increasingly popular. This includes the rapid surge in Greek yogurt sales, Lentils, Quinoa (a protein-rich grain), and broths. According to Nancy Kruse, this concept of “real food” will continue to grow and will encompass sustainably grown foods, organic foods, farm to table foods, and seasonal foods. She states that restaurants and retailers will need to understand their customer’s expectations in order to manage this growing trend.

Nancy Kruse’s findings are backed up by the recent National Restaurant Associations What’s Hot in 2015 Survey. This annual survey of 1300 chefs showed that locally sourced meats and seafood is the No. 1 food trend in restaurants. The desire for new cuts of meat came in at No. 6 on the survey, further driving this trend. I have personally seen increased interest in chefs from around the country interested in the potential to purchase beef quarters and fabricating within the restaurant to produce various cut options and menu items.

Coming in at No. 2 in the What’s Hot for 2015 survey was locally grown produce, No. 3 was environmental sustainability, No. 4 was Healthy kid’s meals, and No. 5 was more natural ingredients/minimally processed food.

In the Main Dishes category, the primary items of interest were locally sourced and new cuts of meat, followed by sustainable seafood, non-traditional fish and grass-fed beef. Artisan and specialty food items were mentioned often particularly artisan cheeses, breads, and bacons. Appetizers of interest included house-cured meats and charcuterie, along with ethnic-inspired items. It was interesting to note that gluten-free dish requests were fading with less consumer interest being expressed.

---

McDonald’s Changing Antibiotic Use Standards

CATEGORY: Weekly Industry Update | Permalink | Posted on: March 11th, 2015

McDonald’s Wants to Start Sourcing Proteins That Have Not Been Treated with Human Antibiotics

McDonald’s recently announced that it will no longer sell chicken treated with antibiotics that are also used in human medicine and will work to stop human antibiotic use in their other food supplies such as beef and pork. In addition, they announced they would stop using milk produced from cows administered artificial growth hormones (rBST).

This initiative will be phased in over the next two years at all 14,000 U.S. restaurants. The U.S. President of McDonald’s, Mike Andres, stated that, “Our customers want food that they feel great about eating, …all the way from the farm to the restaurant….and these moves take a step toward better delivering on those expectations”. McDonald’s did say that once they phase in the “no antibiotics” program producers will be allowed to treat sick animals but those animals will not be included in their food supply chain. However, the company did state they will continue to allow chicken growers to use ionophores in their poultry diets, since ionophores are not used in humans. Their reasoning on this is that chickens grown in vertically integrated systems still need low grade antibiotics to stay healthy, stating “if fewer chickens get sick, then fewer chickens need to be treated with antibiotics that are important to human medicine”.

The poultry industry has used feed grade doses of antibiotics for many years to both kill potentially harmful bacteria and to aid in daily gains of the birds. Feed grade antibiotics have been used in the beef and pork industries for the same purposes. However, there has been significant concern in recent years that the use of antibiotics on a daily basis in livestock production, particularly antibiotics that are important to human health, has fostered the development of “superbugs”. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, bacteria that have developed a resistance to these antibiotics can infect humans through a number of ways, such as through undercooked meat, infection of farm workers or food processing workers.

McDonald’s is following the trend started by other restaurant chains such as Chik-fil-A, Carl’s JR, Hardee’s, and Panera Bread. All have announced plans to eliminate the use of human grade antibiotics over the next several years. McDonald’s, because of its sheer size, is one of the largest chicken buyers in the U.S., representing 4% of the total chicken market.

According to poultry industry representatives, they have been phasing out the use of “human-critical” antibiotics for a number of years now. Tyson has removed these antibiotic types from their hatcheries as has Perdue. Both companies now claim to use only antibiotics prescribed by veterinarians. The Chicken Council stated they have been working with the U.S. FDA to phase out the use of antibiotics for growth promotion purposes.

McDonald’s has worked with a consortium of scientists to develop recommendations for antimicrobial use and recently published their “Global Vision for Antimicrobial Stewardship in Food Animals”. According to the document, the use of certain “critically important” antibiotics in all animal production would be significantly reduced, suppliers would be required to maintain records of antimicrobial use, and such use would be limited to sick animals only.

However, there are many who feel that McDonald’s is not going far enough in their global vision and need to ban the use of all medically-important antibiotics used in routine disease prevention, or antibiotic resistant bacteria will continue to develop.

McDonald’s will start offering milk from cows that have not been treated with rBST, a hormone developed by Monsanto to increase the fluid milk production from dairy cows. Since milk is such a popular item in the Happy Meal choices on their menu, McDonald’s believes this move will be important to their customers.

The past year has been particularly tough for McDonald’s U.S. restaurants with sales dropping and consumers expressing concern about the quality of McDonald’s food and the sustainability of their food supply. This has spurred McDonald’s to develop a marketing campaign called “Our Food, Your Questions”. McDonald’s has stated that they want to be increasingly transparent about their food supply.

McDonald’s is listed as a founding member of the new U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (USRSB) along with a number of other restaurant chains, grocery retailers, processors, feeders, and cattle companies. The stated goal of the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef is to identify strategies to increase the sustainability of the domestic beef supply. Nicole Johnson-Hoffman, VP of Cargill Value Added Meats and Interim Chair of the Roundtable, stated that, “Research tells us that American consumers are increasingly interested in the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the beef they purchase”.

There are 43 founding members of the USRSB ranging from meat processors and retailers/restaurants to feedlots to ranchers to universities to environmental groups. It will be quite interesting to see what directives come out of the USRSB and how those directives drive changes in antibiotic use, environmental policy, soil health, and consumer perceptions and overall health. See below for a complete list of USRSB membership.

Founding members: Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.; Beef Marketing Group; Texas Cattle Feeders Association; Micro Technologies; Merck Animal Health; JBS USA; McDonald’s; Wal-Mart; World Wildlife Fund; The Nature Conservancy; Noble Foundation; King Ranch Institute for Ranch Management; Adams Land and Cattle, LLC; AgriBeef Co.; Alabama Cattlemen’s Association; Beef Cattle Institute, Kansas State University; Certified Angus Beef; Colorado Cattlemen’s Association; Costco Wholesale Corp.; Dow AgroSciences LLC; Elanco Animal Health; Florida Cattlemen’s Association; FPL Food LLC; Global Food Traceability Center; Golden State Foods; Holistic Management International; Kansas Livestock Association; K-COE ISOM; Lopez Foods; Minnesota Cattlemen’s Association; Missouri Cattlemen’s Association; National Beef Packing Co. LLC; National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; National Livestock Producers Association; Nebraska Cattlemen’s Association; Oregon Cattlemen’s Association; Simplot Livestock Company; Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable; Texas A&M; AgriLife Research; Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association; The National Grazing Lands Coalition; The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation; Tyson Foods, Inc.; and Zoetis.

---

Laura’s Lean Beef introduces new grass-fed products

CATEGORY: Weekly Industry Update | Permalink | Posted on: March 3rd, 2015

Laura’s Lean Beef, a division of Meyer Natural Foods, has announced their launch of a 100% Grass Fed All Beef Hot Dog. The new line of hot dogs are made without nitrates, nitrites, or fillers of any kind and are sold uncured. Laura’s Lean also stated that the hot dogs are gluten-free and casein-free and will be available in select retail locations by February 2015. Since joining Meyer Natural Foods, Laura’s Lean has introduced a number of new items including fully prepared lean entrees and soups.

Recent Consumer Survey
A recent consumer survey, commissioned by Certified Angus Beef (CAB), found that demand for high quality beef has risen in spite of a recessionary economy. The survey was conducted by Oklahoma State University and examined consumer purchases of USDA Choice and USDA Prime beef at the retail grocery and foodservice levels. The survey indicated that consumers are returning to pre-recession levels of spending on meat purchases.

Since 1995, the beef industry as a whole has had a 12 percent increase in the number of carcasses grading USDA Choice and Prime. This has been in response to the increased consumer desire for more highly marbled beef. Within the CAB program, the sales of upper two thirds USDA Choice beef have more than doubled since 2003, far outpacing same type sales in commodity USDA Choice beef.

Another growth area within the beef sector over the past ten years has been the “Better Burger” sector. There are a number of relatively new Better Burger concept restaurant chains that have seen unprecedented growth during the past decade. This includes concept restaurants that are serving 100% Grass Fed beef burgers.
The survey also revealed that consumers are spending more on their total grocery purchases, including meat. A November 2014 survey showed that consumers are willing to pay more for ground beef as well. The research does beg the question, “at what price will consumers reduce their beef purchases?”

The results of this consumer study also mirror what we are seeing within the grass fed sector. Grass fed beef sales have continued to grow in spite of prior recession with double digit growth averaging 25-30% for the past ten years in a row. Grass fed beef now makes up more than 5% of all beef sales in the U.S. and has attracted the attention of members of the Big 4 packers. In addition, we are seeing stronger consumer demand for high quality grass fed beef, with more desire expressed for grass fed beef that grades USDA Choice and up.

---

Sysco Goes Grass Fed With Irish Supplier

CATEGORY: Weekly Industry Update | Permalink | Posted on: February 16th, 2015

---

Recent Data Supports Soil Health Benefits of Adaptive High Stock Density Grazing

CATEGORY: Weekly Industry Update | Permalink | Posted on: February 10th, 2015

by: Allen R. Williams, Ph.D.

In the fall of 2014 soil data was collected from three distinct cattle farms located in Northeast Mississippi. The farms were in very close proximity to each other and were comprised of the same soil types, topography, and annual average rainfall. The only primary difference was the grazing strategy employed by each farm.
The three farms selected were:

• Farm 1 – Practicing Adaptive High Stock Density Grazing (AHSD) for the past five years. Prior to that the farm was alternately in row crop, dairy, and CRP for the last several decades. Stock density during that time period would strategically alternate between 100,000 lbs/acre and over 500,000 lbs/acre, with cattle being moved daily to fresh pasture. Soil conditions were poor in year 1 with soil organic matter averaging less than 1.5%. A cow/calf operation has been utilized on the farm for the past five years with the cattle being used as a tool for land improvement.
• Farm 2 – Practicing a more conventional grazing methodology (CG-Good) with two to four week planned rotations of cattle from pasture to pasture. Land has been continuously in pasture and grazing for the past 50 years alternating between cow/calf and stocker grazing.
• Farm 3 – Practicing continuous grazing methodology (CG-Poor) where cattle have been free to graze the majority of the farm without restriction to movement. This farm has been in continuous grazing (primarily cow/calf) for the past 40+ years.
  

In early November of 2014, a team of scientists collected soils data from each farm on the same day. Random locations were selected on each of the three farms and soil pits were dug to a depth of three feet. Soil samples were collected for analysis within every six inch layer from the soil surface down to three feet (36 inches). Observations were made and recorded pertaining to root structure and development, presence of soil organisms, soil texture, and soil aggregation.

Immediate observations were that root structure and development, including root depth and mass, were significantly greater at the AHSD farm compared to the CG-Good and CG-Poor farms. Root growth was observed all the way down to and past the three foot depth on the AHSD farm. On the other farms, root growth did not reach the three foot depth. In addition, there were noted differences in apparent soil life with earthworms immediately present in the soil of the AHSD farm. Earthworm populations were significantly lower at the CG-Good and CG-Poor farms. Likewise, soil texture, aggregation, and appearance was significantly better at the AHSD farm when compared to the CG-Good and CG-Poor farms.

Laboratory analysis of the soil samples from each farm revealed even more startling differences. Table 1 shows the difference in soil pH between the three farms. On the AHSD farm, soil pH was a constant 7.8-7.9 from the top six inches down to 36 inches. On the CG-Good farm, soil pH ranged from 5.8 in the top 12 inches to 7.0 at 36 inches. On the CG-Poor farm, soil pH ranged from 5.6 in the top 12 inches to 4.9 at 36 inches.

Table 1: Soil pH on Three Sampled Farms to Depth of 36 inches.



Table 2 shows the result of analysis for Total Soil Carbon from each of the three farms. The AHSD farm had total soil carbon measurements ranging from 4.67% in the top 6 inches to 1.42% at 36 inches. The CG-Good farm had a range in Total Soil Carbon from 1.64% in the top 6 inches to 0.41% at 36 inches. The CG-Poor farm had Total Soil Carbon measurements ranging from 1.36% in the top 6 inches to 0.34% at 36 inches. So, on the AHSD farm, Total Soil Carbon was significantly higher all the way down to the three foot depth. On the CG-Good and CG-Poor farms, Total Soil Carbon dropped sharply with samples taken at deeper depths.

Table 2: Total Soil Carbon to Depth of 36 Inches.



Table 3 shows the soil organic matter (SOM) results from the three farms. On the AHSD farm, SOM was 4.26% in the top 6 inches and 1.98% at 36 inches. As stated earlier, the AHSD farm started 5 years ago with an average of just 1.5% SOM in the top 6 inches, so the SOM has increased almost 3 times within a 5 year period. On the CG-Good farm, SOM ranged from 3.28% in the top 6 inches to 0.82% at 36 inches. On the CG-Poor farm, SOM ranged from 2.72% in the top 6 inches to 0.68% at 36 inches.

Table 3: Soil Organic Matter to a Depth of 36 Inches.



Table 4 shows the Carbon Assessment per acre in terms of KG of carbon per square meter, toms of carbon per acre, and tons of CO2 equivalent per acre. The AHSD farm had a total of 51.41 tons of carbon per acre, whereas the CG-Good had 28.71 tons/acre and the CG-Poor farm had 22.16 tons/acre. In tons of CO2 Equivalent per acre, the AHSD farm had 188.13 tons/acre while the CG-Good and the CG-Poor farms had 105.07 and 81.09 tons per acre, respectively.

Table 4: Carbon Assessment Per Acre Down to 36 inches.



In summary, results show that with just 5 years of AHSD grazing, significant results can be achieved in terms of building soil organic matter, soil carbon, and overall soil health. Even with what are considered (by traditional standards) good grazing practices, AHSD grazing appears to yield results and benefits that far exceed more relaxed grazing rotations. The ability to build such significant differences within a relatively short period of time make AHSD grazing an attractive tool for land improvement and remediation.

---