Caution Advised on USDA Proposal

California Dairies Cautious On USDA Proposal

By Jessica Theisman, Associate Editor

California Ag Today met recently with Kevin Abernathy, the general manager for Milk Producers Council. Milk Producer’s Council is an advocacy organization trying to make sure the dairies in California are being treated correctly. The MPC has been working for a long time to ensure that the California dairies are well taken care of. Especially when it comes to the USDA proposal to add the California dairy industry into the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO).

Kevin Abernathy, Manager of Milk Producers Council

“MPC has been an advocacy group on behalf of California dairy families since 1949. This FMMO process is something we have been akin to since the start of it,” Abernathy said. “It was the early leadership of MPC that started the process of adding twenty-some odd years ago. Then the work evolved into work done by Sye Vanderdusson, Jeffery Vandenheuvel and Rob Vandenheuvel, with their growth management plans, which lead to the Holstein plan, which got evolved into the Foundation For The Future plan, which ultimately ended up where we’re at today.”

It is said that CDFA still has the upper hand in the situation concerning quotas and pay. The MPC is taking a look into these concerns.

“If this was something that was announced by CDFA because we have the experience in working in the California system, it is easy for us to calculate and the compute the outcomes. … So that is the process that we are going through right now and understanding how this thing works,” Abernathy said.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:17:10-07:00March 20th, 2017|

Pyrethroid Review Deadline Nearing

Pyrethroid Review Commenting Deadline is March 31

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

The EPA is reviewing the pyrethroid class of crop protection materials and it’s concerning the Ag industry, which often turns to the materials as part of an integrated pest management strategy – recommended by the University of California.

David Haviland – an entomologist with UC Cooperative Extension Kern County – said he is not too concerned with the EPA review.

“Every pesticide should be periodically reviewed to make sure that all new information about a product gets reconsidered. Our ability to test for products changes over time. Our experience with products changes over times. The role of products changes over time, so a re-review is warranted. I don’t have any concerns with that,” Haviland said.

Of course, the big question is what is the current role of pyrethroids in the grower’s toolbox?

“It absolutely has a role. The best way to manage pests we know is through integrated pest management, and integrated means using lots of different tactics. Sometimes, there’s a way to control a pest completely with biological control, sometimes there’s a cultural control, but there are cases where pesticides are needed,” Haviland said.

“There’s a time and a place for a very soft surgical strike against one-species pesticide and there’s also a time and a place for a product that can kill two or three or four different pests at the same time. Sometimes, those broader spectrum products are the only ones available for certain pests,” Haviland explained.

“Pyrethroids fit that role as the last group of broad spectrum products that are effective on a wide range of pests, particularly with organophosphates, which is being phased out of most crops,” Haviland said.

There is time to comment on this EPA review – and this time expires March 31, so it’s critical for anyone who needs these pyrethroids as an IPM strategy to go to www.defendbifenthrin.com and post a comment.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:05:42-07:00February 27th, 2017|

EPA Reviews Agricultural Pyrethroids

Pyrethroid Products Reviewed

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

Pyrethroids are synthetic chemical insecticides that are included in more than 3,500 registered products, with many of those being used in agriculture. Every 15 years, the Environmental Protection Agency is required by congress to review all registered pesticides. They received their first-ever review evaluating how they impact fish and aquatic plants.

John Cummings is the Registration and Regulatory Affairs Manager for FMC, a diversified chemical company that has been serving the agricultural community for over a century. “We are very concerned with the content of that risk assessment – that they have identified that there is high-risk concerns to certain aquatic organisms, not necessarily fish or anything like that, but small aquatic organisms,” Cummings said.

The underlying purpose of these kinds of reviews is to ensure public safety, especially when reviewing products used in ag production. “They’ve done a very high level, simple, cursory risk assessment that has identified these concerns,” Cummings said.

During the past decade, the use of pyrethroids has increased, as the use of organophosphate pesticides continues to decline. That is due to their higher toxicity to birds and mammals when compared to pyrethroids. Cummings expressed his concern regarding the data that the EPA bases their decision on. “There’s been other actions by EPA recently around the use of the best available data and the best science around risk assessment. … The EPA should be using the best science to make the right regulatory decisions while protecting the environment,” Cummings said.

Through their industry consortium, the Pyrethroid Working Group, FMC is in the process of putting data together that they hope the EPA will take into consideration. Cummings explained that their research will “make it more real world while still conservative and protecting the environment. It’s more real world and typical of how these products are used.”

Pyrethroids are a broad-spectrum insecticide that have shown tremendous success in controlling a variety of different insects considered to be economically important to the ag industry. “Pyrethroids are a very important element of both integrated pest management as well as resistance management. Growers today are facing very complex insect control problems, and it’s necessary to have many tools in the tool box,” Cummings said.

“I think EPA needs to understand how important it is to consider the benefit of these to production agriculture as well as society, in feeding the world,” Cummings concluded.

The public comment period for the EPA’s risk assessment has been extended to March 31st.

Ag Stakeholders are urged to comment at http://www.defendbifenthrin.com

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:05:43-07:00February 26th, 2017|

Pyrethroid Review by EPA is Important

EPA Pyrethroid Review Vital for Many Reasons

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

David Haviland is a UC Cooperative Extension Farm Advisor based in Kern County, and he’s focused on etymology. He spoke to California Ag Today about the current review by the EPA on the pyrethroid class of crop protection materials. He noted that the EPA is concerned about the material making its way to waterways.

David Haviland

“It’s a legitimate concern in that pyrethroids can bind to sediment, and if that sediment was just hypothetically say, worst case scenario, what if you sprayed a product into a orchard or a field right next to a river on the day before it rained?” Haviland asked.

“We don’t do that, but hypothetically if you did that and that sediment washed from that orchard out into a stream, yes, those pyrethroids can affect aquatic invertebrates and of course little tiny organisms. These little invertebrates are the basis for food chains in the stream systems,” Haviland said.

“Just like if you’ve got a household cleaner, it says, ‘Store out of reach of children.’ So yeah, there’s a risk of that product, and you mitigate or solve that risk by only using it where it’s appropriate, storing it where somebody can’t get it,” Haviland said. “The same is true with pyrethroids. If you read the label, there’s very specific use instructions on where you can and can’t use the product as well as other details about waterways and buffer zones and things like that,” he said.

All that is taken into account to make sure that any risk that may occur doesn’t turn into an actual real problem. “That’s part of the review, for the EPA to look over that label,” Haviland said.

The EPA review is to make sure that any mitigations on the label and use patterns adequately take into account any risks that may be real. “I expect it will be done scientifically and prudently and based on that, I hope pyrethroids are in the tool box for a long time,” Haviland said.

Patrick Cavanaugh2017-02-20T16:11:16-08:00February 16th, 2017|

Ag Unite Addresses Critical Ag Issues

Ag Unite Brings Stanislaus County Together

By Jessica Theisman, Associate Editor

The Stanislaus County Farm Bureau was recently recognized with a Program of Excellence Award from the American Farm Bureau for its Ag Unite program.

One of the big goals of Ag Unite is gathering money for political action. “We raised money for political action, and we also raised money for legal defense funds because there’s a lot of lawsuits that are happening, where a lot of people have had issues with government overreaching,” said Wayne Zipser, Executive Director of the Stanislaus County Farm Bureau.

Wayne Zipser

An example of government overreach is with John Duarte of Duarte Nursery in Stanislaus County. That case involves Duarte Nursery versus the Army Corps. of Engineers. The court ruled that the company violated the Clean Water Act by plowing its property, even though the Act exempts normal farming practices.

“We’re looking to raise money for that and for a variety of other things that we know that are going to come along. We know that it’s not the last thing that’s going to happen, certainly not the first. We need to get elected people in the legislature who understand. We must have people that have more of a moderate and an understanding of what agriculture is, what it’s based with, and how we can be able to survive in California,” Zipser said. “The farmers and I today field calls constantly. We’ve got some new legislation that has come along, and it’s costing them a lot of money. It’s costing them a lot of things, and they’re fed up. We need to get more involved, and that’s what Ag Unite was all about. Getting more people involved and trying to bridge everyone together, not only if you’re a farmer, but the tractor salesmen, the seed sales folks, the car dealerships, the insurance companies.”

Zipser explained that these ancillary companies are involved when agriculture is attacked. “They, our consumers, and the very people that rely on the farmers and ranchers are attacked. [Those] who not only provide jobs, but also provide food in a safe and reliable food supply.”

Stanislaus-area farmers truly wanted to see Ag Unite happen, according to Zipser. They are pushing to get other farm bureaus to get involved and participate in events to keep the discussions going. “Again, we only represent 1 percent of the population of the producers, so we have to speak with a loud voice,” he said.

One of the major, potentially devastating regulations for Stanislaus County farmers is the California Water Resources Control Board’s plan to take 40 percent of the water from the Tuolumne, Stanislaus and Merced rivers to increase flows in the Sacramento Delta for salmon.

Those who attended the meeting about the plan in December were not just farmers. They were teachers, public safety folks and the district attorney. According to Zipser, they all talked about what the potential devastation if 40 percent of the flow from the Tuolumne, Merced and Stanislaus rivers was diverted, and the impact to not only local economies, but even crime and school children.

“This is what unification is. It’s uniting and protecting our industry because it is our number one industry here in Stanislaus County. We have some of the biggest food processors in the world that reside right here in our county. It is vital for the health of our communities to push back and to fight this,” Zipser said.

Another regulation that passed last year was the overtime bill, which forces farmers to pay more overtime for the extra hours that Zipser said farm workers wanted to work to earn more money. Now, they’re going to get paid less.

“Sometimes, there is unintended consequences to legislation. It may be the very same people who wanted to protect those that they thought they were protecting … they’re hurting them because it’s going to reduce their hours, and it’s going to reduce money in their pocket,” Zipser said. “We don’t like that, because we want to make sure that our folks who are working for us in this industry are protected. Our farmers and ranchers do that without question. They are part of the family. Unintended consequences are what I believe that this overtime bill was going to create.”

Of course, the farm industry wants everyone to thrive: the pruners, the tractor drivers, the welders, the harvester, the irrigators, and the mechanics.

According to Zipser, farmers were talking about how some of these workers have been employed with them for 20 to 40 years, have bought homes and put their kids through college and have thrived.

“This is the way they did business in the past, and somebody comes along and they want to change it all up. Again, an unintended consequence. That farm worker who could send their child through college might not be able to now or won’t be able to buy that home, and that is the American dream. We want to buy a home and we want to make a better life for our kids. Sometimes things step in the way of that,” Zipser said.

“The farmers contribute so much, if you take everything into consideration. They are truly our folks who are heroes.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2017-02-08T23:29:15-08:00February 8th, 2017|

California Cattlemen Challenge Illegal Listing of Grey Wolf

Ranchers Fighting to Protect Livestock

By: Jessica Theisman, Associate Editor

On January 31, the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) and the California Farm Bureau Federation filed a lawsuit challenging the California Fish and Game Commission’s June 2014 decision to list the grey wolf as an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. This decision went into effect on January 1, 2017, and has many farmers and ranchers upset.

“The organizations are represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nationwide leader in litigation aimed at ensuring limited government, private property rights and sensible environmental protections. The suit alleges that endangered listing of the gray wolf under the California Endangered Species Act was improper for three reasons,” the CCA said in a news release.

This subspecies of grey wolf originally descended from Canada. It is not native to the state of California, as the law requires, and definitely not an asset for California’s agriculture industry. Secondly, there is an abundant and healthy population of this species throughout the western United States. The Commission focused too much on the California populations, the CCA alleges. Lastly, the commission impermissibly listed the grey wolf based on the occasional presence in California by a single wolf at that time.

“The Fish and Game Commission took a big bite out of its own credibility with this unjustified listing,” said Damien Schiff, PLF Principal Attorney, in the CCA’s release. “The agency managed to label the gray wolf as ‘endangered’ only by myopically and illegally ignoring its population outside California.”

Ranchers’ livestock fall prey to these predators, and this new policy will cause a huge impact on the rural economies that depend upon agriculture. CCA president and Butte County cattleman Dave Daley said in the news release that the lawsuit is necessary for ranchers to ensure the humane treatment of their livestock.

“Under California law, you can’t even pursue a species that is listed as endangered,” Daley said. “If a rancher sees a wolf attacking one of his or her calves, he or she can’t chase the wolf away without breaking the law. Ranchers are not seeking open season on wolves, we just want sensible wolf management that also allows us to protect our livestock. That will require delisting the gray wolf.”

The case is California Cattlemen’s Association, et. al. v. California Fish and Game Commission, filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. Those interested in the case can visit www.pacificlegal.org for more information.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:17:10-07:00February 7th, 2017|

FSMA Requirements Must Be Addressed

FSMA Requirements Must be Understood and Documented

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

When it comes to the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), there are now some big changes for food processors, farmers and farm employees.

“One of the things we’re seeing that has changed as of recently, mainly due to the Food Safety Modernization Act, is there are standardized curriculum requirements within what we call the food processor rule, or the preventive controls rule, but now that’s going back to the farm in what’s called the produce safety rule,” said Jeremiah Szabo, vice president of operations for Safe Food Alliance, a division of DFA of California.

“These rules are actually regulations that have been published and finalized by the Food & Drug Administration, and there are federal regulations, of which the states are going to adopt and manage and regulate,” Szabo said.

“One of the things we’ve been doing, and what our organization has been preparing for, is really beefing up the number of trainers we have on staff, their qualifications, sending them to lead instructor courses as we did, actually, starting about a year ago,” he said.

“We were involved with becoming lead instructors, and we have lead instructors on staff, to offer the preventive controls qualified individual training for food processors, which is a mandatory requirement when it comes to education requirements for those individuals at every food processor site that will manage their food safety system,” Szabo said.

The training includes documentation, record-keeping and education of staff working at those facilities, as well as their supply chain management and sanitation practice management.

Szabo said that the two-and-a-half day training has been successful. “As of March of 2016, we’ve conducted about 20 of those food processor trainings in California and other states.”

“They’ve been really successful,” he said. “I think the practicality that comes with those courses is really important for the industry to hone in and to learn about how regulators are going to be expecting food facilities to document their food safety plan, as well as implement their food safety plan in their facilities.

Szabo noted that as the Safe Food Alliance was rolling out the preventive controls for qualified individual training, there were FDA and state regulators present in the training to learn about the preventive controls along with the industry. “This was good because the industry could hear from both sides of the aisle,” Szabo said.

On the farm side of the FSMA rule, farms not exempted from that rule will require eight hours of standardized training. “It involves things that are mentioned in the regulations, such as employee qualifications and education when it comes to personal hygiene for those employees that are interacting with the harvest activities, as well as the produce itself,” Szabo said.

For farms, there are eight modules of training, including worker health and hygiene and soil amendments, as well as agricultural production and post-harvest water quality.

“We’ve also partnered with the California Farm Bureau and their Farm Employee Labor Services Association to offer the training to farm supervisors and farm managers, as well as anybody else on the farm who are managing farm food safety plans and training and education,” Szabo said.

Patrick Cavanaugh2017-02-01T19:33:27-08:00February 1st, 2017|

Pesticide Expert Brian Leahy Has Respect for Weeds

Brian Leahy Reminds Growers About DPR’s Mission

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

Brian Leahy is the Director of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). Leahy was among the first organic rice growers, and he said he had a very intimate relationship with weeds. “I have lot of respect for weeds, and a lot of respect for weed management. So, with that, we know that weeds are an important challenge in agriculture and in our over society,” he said.

Brian Leahy

Leahy noted that herbicide solutions are very cost effective when they work, but they come with challenges. “And those challenges include the Department of Pesticide Regulation. We are a science-based organization. We have about 400 employees; 300 of them are classified as scientists. We have well over 100 Ph.D.s, we have people with graduate programs from three different continents.”

“We are a very science-based organization. We have very good scientists, but we also incorporate what we call Risk Management. So myself, along with my chief Deputy Director Christopher Reardon, take a look at what the scientists do, and we make risk management decisions. I think it is an important role,” Leahy said. “We use a lot of data, and we are very good at collecting data. Our core mission, of course, is to protect the environment and human health. That is at the center.”

Leahy noted that farm workers and farmers have the closest contact to pesticides, as do folks who are helping with cleaning, such as custodians and janitors.

“But that is our main mission, and it includes the community,” he said. “California has done a remarkable job of building on farmland and adjacent to farmland. We have schools, houses, hospitals, daycare centers, all very close to farmland that uses pesticides. So we have focused on protection of human health as well as how we use pesticides.”

“I would really emphasize farm worker protection, the long-term studies on pesticides show that the folks most at risk are the handlers,” Leahy said.” Of course the other big thing we are supposed to do is protect our environment. That is actually getting to be a much more challenging endeavor. It includes our water quality, it includes pollinators, and off site movement.”

“The third component of our mission has been to foster reduced-risk pesticides. That can take all kinds of forms. We have been engaged in landscaping in this state, because we know which plant in your front yard or backyard is going to determine which pesticides and herbicides you need to use,” Leahy said. “IPM tells you to look at your environment, so we are encouraging that. We are looking at cultural practices and ways to reduce the reliance on pesticides. So that is a part of our mission as well.”

One the most important relationships DPR has is with the county ag commissioners. “Recently, I spent the day with the County Ag Commissioner of Monterey County – a very challenging position,” Leahy said. “We met a couple of Board of Supervisors, we met with labor folks, we met with public health officers, and we met with the superintendent of the school district, which has a lot of schools in the middle of farms. She also has a student population where 11 percent are homeless, some of the poorest students in the state in her school district. She is trying to ensure that her children are safe as they learn. And her relationship with her County Agricultural Commissioner is very important.”

“These County Agricultural Commissioners put about 300 biologists in the field to do pesticide enforcement and education. Enforcement is very important, education is even more important. So, we give them somewhere around $27 million a year to run their pesticide program. They do a very good job. So that is a very important relationship we have,” Leahy said.

Leahy explained that DPR and CDFA have a very vigorous pesticide residue-testing program here in the state. “We test more products than the Federal government does. We look at what might be our biggest challenges and found … cactus from Mexico with residues of Organophosphate materials, which [were] banned in the ’60s. If you ate them, it would make you feel like you had the flu. So we have begun to target what we think are some of the most problematic crops in countries,” he said.

“We are starting to do enforcement, going after retailers and brokers. They have no business selling food that will make people sick,” Leahy said. “It is not a good business practice, and we need to make sure they get that message.”

“It also helps us with enforcement. On a very rare occasion, we will find a California grower who used a pesticide that should not even be on that crop,” Leahy said. “If that happens, we will go in and have them destroy the crop, fine them and get them to realize that it is probably wise, probably in their best interest. But it is a very important tool. What we have found is the most important thing is simply working together. We build very strong relationships with the farmers, the farm workers, the registrant community, with all the stakeholders. And there are a lot of stakeholders in pesticide.”

Leahy said that pesticides are kind of a challenging business because what they are doing is changing human behavior. “If we want to ensure that if you are producing food, you have the tools that you need; we simply want to make sure that those tools do the job and don’t keep moving and doing harm to your neighbors, yourself or the environment. But this collaborative approach is the only one that works, and we want to do that; a lot of active listening.”

Product registration is a very important part of the DPR program. Leahy said that introducing a new active ingredient into the market is a half-a-billion dollar endeavor. “There are years when we don’t see a new active ingredient. And other years, maybe you see four, which is a big number. Not a lot of new herbicides coming into the marketplace. And every time something comes in, there is a change, either a new AI or a even a new use. There are a lot of people looking at that,” he said.

“I can tell you that the water community looks very closely at pesticides. Every time we try to introduce something new, something to control ants or something to control weeds, they want reassurances that it is not going to end up in the water supply, in the storm water, in the drinking water, all of it. The water community are our partners, so we have to listen to them.”

“Then we have all of the stakeholders like the Center for Biological Diversity and all those folks that really care about environmental issues, and they will sue you very quickly if they feel like there is going to be a challenge to one of their critters. So it is challenging to get in new chemistry. This is kind of a cautionary tale that the ag industry must be sure to use materials correctly. Resistance management should always be on our minds,” he noted.

“A number of things have made us successful. I talked about the registration process, looking at the chemistry, and getting a really good idea of how that chemistry is going to behave in the human body and the environment before we put it in.

“Looking at it as we go, we have an incredible system to collect data. We try to capture every pesticide illness in the state. We work hard to do that. We listen to people who have complaints and issues and we follow up and so we can direct our science to determine how to make it better,” Leahy noted.

Recently, the National Academy of Sciences looked at the DPR program. According to Leahy, one of the things that they said was that DPR was “incredible at mitigation, which basically means that they figure out how that pesticide moves off-target.”

“We have made an amazing amount of progress. Society is always asking us to go further, and we will. This is a plug once again to remind you that weeds and insect pests are quick at adapting, that resistance is a real issue. We don’t want to lose tools because they are hard to replace. So mix it up,” Leahy said.

“As we all know, there is no silver bullet for resistance – there are multiple ways of preventing resistance -so just keep that in mind. … We want to keep the tools that we have, but we want to be able to use the new ones and the core of that is a prevention program,” Leahy said.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:02:00-07:00January 30th, 2017|

Pyrethroids Under Review

EPA Reviewing Pyrethroids

Ag Industry Urged to Comment

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

The pyrethroid insecticide class is in review for ecological risk assessment by the Environmental Protection Agency. John Cummings, Registration and Regulatory Affairs Manager at chemical company FMC believes that the assessment could have a large impact on producers.

Agricultural leaders have urged all to comment on the need to keep this chemistry available. Please share your thoughts by clicking here.

“At FMC, we’re very concerned with the content of that risk assessment that they’ve identified that there’s high risk concerns to certain aquatic organisms, not necessarily fish or anything like that, but small aquatic organisms,” Cummings said. “Our concern, as a company who manufactures these pyrethroids, which are used in California, is that the EPA has not used the best science that’s available. They’ve done a very high level simple cursory risk assessment that has identified these concerns.”

More than 3,500 registered insecticides contain a pyrethroid. Many pyrethroids are household products and are not limited to agricultural usage.

“Our hope, as a pyrethroid company, is that EPA will consider better data which FMC and our industry consortium, the Pyrethroid Working Group, are developing to incorporate into this risk assessment. We need the EPA to look at the real world of how these products are used. With that, that risk assessment should look much better and remove any of these risk concerns that EPA currently has,” he said.

There have been other actions conducted by the EPA around the use of the best available data and the best science in risk assessment. These kind of precedents will impact production agriculture in the U.S. as well as California.

“EPA should be using the best science to make the right regulatory decisions while protecting the environment,” Cummings said. “It is very important, and I think it’s important, too, that EPA understand the implications of taking a conservative approach and making regulatory decisions that may impact production. I think EPA needs to understand how important it is to consider the benefit of production agriculture in feeding the world.”

It is important to keep many pest control products available to prevent the overuse of one product. Pesticide resistance is a growing problem, and it is essential that producers are able to keep all of their options open.

“Pyrethroids are a very important element of integrated pest management, as well as resistance management. Growers today are facing very complex insect control problems,” Cummings said.

“It’s necessary to have many tools in the toolbox to control insects. We have multiple classes of chemistry, but based on regulatory decisions, the EPA could potentially remove some of these important tools, which puts more pressure on other tools that remain in the toolbox, and insects may become resistant to many of these tools,” Cummings explained.

“Pyrethroids are a critical broad spectrum insecticide that are very affordable and control a lot of different insects that are economically important,” Cummings said.

Bob Klein, the manager of the Pistachio Research Board, agrees that pyrethroids are essential to pest management.

“The use of pyrethroids goes hand-in-hand with the use of soft chemicals like the growth regulators, or some of the neonicotinoids, or some of the other new chemistries we have,” Klein said.

“It guards against resistance development in those other chemicals as well. The inclusion of pyrethroids by the University of California, and many other Integrated Pest Management manuals, shows that pyrethroids are an important part of any IPM program. IPM programs are the way that people control pests in their orchards,” Klein said.

The risk assessment is currently open for comment and will remain open until March 31^st.

Comment: Here

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:05:43-07:00January 26th, 2017|

Livestock Economics for Western Producers

Livestock Economics: What Attributes Bring Higher Prices?

By Laurie Greene, Editor

At the 100th Annual California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) & California CattleWomen’s (CCW) Convention last week in Sparks, Nevada, Tina Saitone, cooperative extension specialist, UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, described her research on rangeland and livestock economics. “Primarily, my focus has been on cattle — beef cattle to date — but I’ve also started some projects recently with sheep producers and the predator interactions they have specifically with coyotes. I am examining whether or not [producers] can use nonlethal depredation methods to mitigate those losses.”

“Right now, I have been concentrating on marketing characteristics of cattle,” she said. “I study those practices employed by producers, such as when they wean their cattle; how many vaccinations they have; whether they market [their cattle] as natural, grass-fed, or organic; and the impact that [these choices] have on their prices.”

Tina Saitone, cooperative extension specialist, UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

Interestingly, Saitone and her colleagues have mainly been using satellite video auction data. “Western Video Market Auction actually held their auction this month here in Sparks, Nevada because they can do it at different locations all the time. So, we use that data to figure out cattle characteristics and then determine the marginal impact that each of those characteristics has on price,” said Saitone.

Characteristics such breed, frame score, flesh score, and weight, are definitely controls in Saitone’s research model because those are main drivers of price. “But what we want to do is figure out — holding all those things constant —if a producer raises their cattle natural, what kind of premium does that bring them? We’re really looking for that incremental difference.”

One might expect certain factors such as natural or organic, to deserve a higher price, but there always has to be a buyer. “Right now, when prices are low relative to 2014 and early 2015, ranchers do have some opportunities to get some higher prices in what we would call niche markets. Consumers are increasingly demanding a wider range of characteristics. They want grass-fed. They want organic. They want natural, no hormones. All of these are what we would call credence attributes. If you go to the grocery store and you taste a steak, you probably don’t know if it was raised natural.”

Accordingly, the industry has third-party certification to assure consumers that when they pay a higher price for that product they are actually getting those traits. “Farmers actually have the ability to fill some of those niche markets that consumers have created with their demand and possibly get higher prices than just selling into traditional commercial channels.”

The data that Saitone has been looking at from Western Video is focused on Western states, including California. Certainly, location places Western producers at a persistent disadvantage because the majority of the processing capacity is in the central part of the country, with Nebraska being the hub. Saitone said, “When you think about cattle being raised in California having to be transported all the way to Nebraska, some 1600 or 1700 miles, not only do you have the cost associated with that transportation, but you also have shrink; you have mortality.

California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA)

California CattleWomen

UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:17:11-07:00December 6th, 2016|

Previous 212223 Next