Cattle Market Outlook & Economics of Enhanced Cow-Calf Calf Traceability Glynn Tonsor Dept. of Agricultural Economics Michigan State University Cow-Calf Calf Management & Technology Seminar December 10-12, 12, 2007 1
Which team is going to win the BCS title game? 1. Ohio State 2. LSU 0% 0% Ohio State LSU 2
How many cows do you currently have in your cow-calf calf operation? 1. < 25 2. 25-49 3. 50 99 4. 100 149 5. 150 199 6. 200 249 7. >= 250 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% <25 25-49 50-99 100-149 150-199 200-249 >= 250 3
How far did you travel to attend this meeting? 1. < 25 miles 2. 26 50 miles 3. 51 75 miles 4. 76 100 miles 5. 101 150 miles 6. 151 200 miles 7. > 200 miles 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% <25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-150 151-200 13% > 200 4
What do you expect the national average hay price to be in 2008? 1. Less than $80/ton 2. $80-$89/ton $89/ton 3. $90-$99/ton $99/ton 4. $100-$109/ton $109/ton 5. $110-$119/ton $119/ton 6. $120/ton or more 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% <$80 $80-$89 $90-$99 $100-$109 $110-$119 >= $120 5
Implications of Ethanol &/or Drought on Cowherds: Increased Feed Costs: Record hay prices LMIC national average hay price forecast of $130/ton (07/08); $110/ton (06/07) was prior record May 1, 2007 US hay stocks were smallest since 1960 (15 million tons) Likely same situation on May 1, 2008 (15.4 million tons) 6
Did you produce more hay this past year than you could feed? 1. Yes 2. No 50% 50% Yes No 7
U S ALL HAY STOCKS May 1 (Beginning of Crop Year) Mil. Tons 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 G-NP-21 11/06/07
Source: LMIC, 11/28/07 9
Percent 60 US RANGE AND PASTURE CONDITION Percent Poor and Very Poor, Weekly 50 40 30 20 Avg. 2001-05 2006 2007 10 0 May Jul Sep Livestock Marketing Information Center Data Source: USDA/NASS G-NP-30 10/29/07
Percent 70 WESTERN REGION RANGE AND PASTURE CONDITION Percent Poor and Very Poor, Weekly 60 50 40 30 20 Avg. 2001-05 2006 2007 10 0 May Jul Sep Livestock Marketing Information Center Data Source: USDA/NASS G-NP-31 10/29/07
Percent 60 CORNBELT REGION RANGE AND PASTURE CONDITION Percent Poor and Very Poor, Weekly 50 40 30 20 Avg. 2001-05 2006 2007 10 0 May Jul Sep Livestock Marketing Information Center Data Source: USDA/NASS G-NP-34 10/29/07
Percent 70 SOUTHEAST REGION RANGE AND PASTURE CONDITION Percent Poor and Very Poor, Weekly 60 50 40 30 20 Avg. 2001-05 2006 2007 10 0 May Jul Sep Livestock Marketing Information Center Data Source: USDA/NASS G-NP-36 10/29/07
Implications of Ethanol &/or Drought on Cowherds: Increased Feed Costs Land competition Heavier feeders are being demanded All else equal, cheaper feeders Reduction in herd size in some crop states / +/-0 0 expansion in US 14
What was the change in MI s beef cow inventory between January 1998 and January 2007? 1. Reduced by 8,000 2. Reduced by 4,000 3. Changed by less than 4,000 4. Increased by 4,000 5. Increased by 8,000 reduced by 8,000 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% reduced by 4,000 no change increased by 4,000 increased by 8,000 15
CHANGE IN BEEF COW NUMBERS JANUARY 1, 1998 TO JANUARY 1, 2007 (1000 Head) -35-160 33 10-107 45-47 50-111 -4 65-6 0-13 -51-9 -11-131 5 39 101 42-120 93-45 -124 41 2-86 -105-39 Alaska 3-207 Hawaii -3-14 US Total -991-15 -27 15-60 -30-3 0 32-1 MA -1 RI 0 CT 0 NJ -5 DE MD 1 5 to 101 (13) 1 to 5 (4) -11 to 1 (13) -51 to -11 (10) -207 to -51 (10) Livestock Marketing Information Center Data Source: USDA/NASS C-N-29 02/02/07
CHANGE IN BEEF COW NUMBERS JANUARY 1, 2006 TO JANUARY 1, 2007 (1000 Head) -24 20 Alaska Hawaii -18 US Total -5 0-2 -99-49 2 15 1-50 15 5 8 17 10-1 -19 17 19 50-50 -60 89 43-10 -75-20 22-8 31-7 -152 27 8 34-2 -17 8-5 34 0 0-1 MA -2 RI 0 CT 2 NJ -1 DE 0 MD 1 17 to 89 (12) 2 to 17 (9) 0 to 2 (7) -17 to 0 (12) -152 to -17 (10) Livestock Marketing Information Center Data Source: USDA/NASS C-N-28 02/02/07
JANUARY 1 COW INVENTORY U.S., Annual Mil. Head 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 2007 = 32.9 Million Head -0.3 Percent 2007 = 9.1 Million Head +0.7 Percent Beef Dairy 5 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 Livestock Marketing Information Center Data Source: USDA/NASS C-N-02 07/20/07
Mil. Head 135 125 115 105 95 85 TOTAL CATTLE INVENTORY BY CYCLE U.S., January 1 1938-49 1949-58 1958-67 1967-79 1979-90 1990-04 2004-07 75 65 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Livestock Marketing Information Center Data Source: USDA/NASS C-N-40 07/20/07
$ Per Cow 150 COW-CALF RETURNS AND CATTLE INVENTORY U.S., Annual Mil. Head 115 100 50 110 105 Cow-Calf Returns 0-50 100 95 Cattle Inventory Jan 1-100 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 90 C-P-67 09/05/07
Jan 2008 Feeder Cattle Futures Variability 80% Window: $104.30 - $117.03 $12.73 P rob ability th at th e rea lize d pr ic e at m aturity w ill be les s th an this p rice P rice 10% 104.3 2 0% 1 06.3 8 3 0% 1 07.9 1 4 0% 1 09.2 3 5 0% 1 10.4 6 6 0% 1 11.7 5 7 0% 1 13.1 1 8 0% 1 14.7 5 9 0% 1 17.0 3 21 Sources: Jim Hilker; http://www.msu.edu/user/hilker/; as of 11/27/07
Economics of Enhanced Cow-Calf Calf Traceability 22
What is meat/animal identification/traceability? Recordkeeping systems designed to track the flow of product or product attributes through the production process or supply chain. (USDA, Golan et al.) identity preservation that can be accomplished by tracking inputs used in production of food back to their origin at various levels in the supply chain (Liddell and Bailey) 23
Traceability System Verification System Verification System: Process by which the company, its customers, consumers and regulators can know with a high degree of certainty that the traceability system is working properly. Documented, auditable procedures for collection and transfer of valued information (e.g., age & source) Traceability is a required and valuable input in Verification Combined, significantly more information transfers in a supply chain Leads to more efficient market operation 24
Economic incentives: Traceability &/or Verification Animal health (proactive and reactive) Food safety concerns Foreign and domestic consumers Credence attribute verification Organic, COOL, Natural, Age, GM-free, free, Improving management On-farm AND throughout supply chain Competition implications across species Bioterrorism risk control Properly assign liability 25
Economic incentives Countries/firms WITH traceability/verification: May access new or sustain existing markets Can protect brand valuation/differentiation Differentiated products often contain quality attributes (both content and process) that cannot be verified through physical inspection, and thus are virtually unknown to the consumer at the time of purchase unless they are either labeled that they contain these attributes or the information about the presence of the attributes is communicated to consumers in some other way. (Curtis, LMIC 2004) Can greatly assist in reducing non-tariff trade barrier issues E.g., age verification likely would increase US beef access to Japan Countries/firms WITHOUT traceability/verification: Risk falling behind on all fronts Less Information = Reduced Likelihood of Optimal Decision Making 26
Alternative Verification Programs PVP, QSA, Independent 3 rd Party, 2 nd Party Verification, Self Certification, Do Nothing (most to least effective ) Self- Certification: signed affidavit; free-rider, rider, bad apple problem 2 nd or Independent 3 rd party: lack government credibility; likely not sufficient for export QSA: government credibility, but not flexible = less marketing value PVP: more expensive; most flexibility and credibility PVP QSA ISO 9001:2000 elements ALL Most Audits >=1/ year >= 2/year Claims Flexible Limited to age, source and non-hormone Mark eting PVP shield No shield 27
Process Verified Program Examples ABS Global, Inc. Source cattle to ranch of origin & provide group age verification IMI Global, Inc. Source, age verification Data Service Provider Smithfield Beef Group 100% Fresh, Hand Trimmed Ground Beef Sources: http://processverified.usda.gov/pvpinfo/ ;11.30.07 28
USDA Beef Export Verification (BEV) Programs Required for beef exports BEVs are specific to destination: Japan age <= 20 months Hong Kong, Mexico, Canada <= 30 mo. Non-hormone treated certificate (EU) 29
Age Verification Age Regulations met in 1 of 3 ways: A40 testing of carcass maturity PVP age-verification QSA age-verification PVP is preferable: CSU study found all A40 cattle <= 17 months; so A40 is extra restrictive Supply of A40 tested carcasses is limited A40 grading doesn t t allow export of variety meats / grading occurs after removal of offal QSA usually documents only age &/or source 30
Cow-Calf Calf Producer Records for QSA/PVP Participation Not standardized; specific to QSA/PVP Basic recommendations: Tag all calves with a unique # at/near birth Keep detailed calving records (e.g., IRM) Calf ID, dam ID, data, sex At least record date of first and last calves Records of all cattle sales Keep records for at least 3 years Extra information of potential value: Vaccinations, implants, or health treatments 31
Do you currently: 1) individually tag all calves; 2) keep detailed calving records; and 3) keep records for at least 3 years? 1. Yes 2. No 50% 50% Yes No 32
Tonsor s s website: http://www.msu.edu/user/gtonsor/ Animal Verification Page: http://www.msu.edu/user/gtonsor/ AnimalVerification.html 33
The quality of information provided by this evening s s program was excellent. excellent. 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Somewhat disagree 4. Somewhat agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree 34
What value do you place on this program in terms of improvements in your operation? 1. $0 2. $1-$50 $50 3. $51-$100 $100 4. $101-$250 $250 5. $251-$500 $500 6. $501-$1,000 $1,000 7. $1,000 or higher 35
Overall, how useful was the Improving Profits by Managing the Cull Cow presentation to you and your operation? 1. Entirely Useless 2. Useless 3. Somewhat Useless 4. Somewhat Useful 5. Useful 6. Extremely Useful 36
Overall, how useful was the Innovative Ways to Reduce Cow Wintering Costs presentation to you and your operation? 1. Entirely Useless 2. Useless 3. Somewhat Useless 4. Somewhat Useful 5. Useful 6. Extremely Useful 37
Overall, how useful was the Making Effective Pasture Renovations presentation to you and your operation? 1. Entirely Useless 2. Useless 3. Somewhat Useless 4. Somewhat Useful 5. Useful 6. Extremely Useful 38
Overall, how useful was the More Pounds Across the Scale presentation to you and your operation? 1. Entirely Useless 2. Useless 3. Somewhat Useless 4. Somewhat Useful 5. Useful 6. Extremely Useful 39
Overall, how useful was the Cattle Market Outlook and Economics of Traceability presentation to you and your operation? 1. Entirely Useless 2. Useless 3. Somewhat Useless 4. Somewhat Useful 5. Useful 6. Extremely Useful 40