Question for Cottonpicken!

[dfarms11]

I know that this isn't the beef forum but I don't know if you even go there. What I am wondering is this. You predicted a while back that all the grain commodities were going to skyrocket and they have basically doubled thereabouts. Where does cattle fit in to your theorys? Or is it a different type of commodity that does not fit into your theorys? I am not being cynical or anything, just wondering if you think cattle with follow where the grains have. From all your reasons it should double as well but for all that history has shown, grain goes up-cattle go down. Just curious.

[cottonpicken]

Yes history is against the cows and the current market forces are going to hurt guys really bad in the short term.But this isnt daddies bull market.

Personally i think it will boil down to international exports,i hate equating it down to supply and demand,but you simply have to in some cases were it breaks down to north american exclusiveness.BUT...Chindia can not feed itself in anyway and those people will eventually love meat as much as we do.The logistics of this fact will require another two or three planet earths.So ya,i'm bullish in the long run.

The near term charts are horrible but the monthly indicate sideways trade(assuming we get a a bounce pretty quick).The 80 level on the live cattle looks pretty crucial to me,we dont want to break below that.

[TOM4CWB]

dfarms11,

There is a real and difficult problem with red meat produce... that stops the new "green" money from entering their circle generally speaking.

In Saskatoon, the numbers went about like this:

Beef = 6 lbs grain for 1 lb meat

Pork = 4 lbs grain for 1 lb meat

Chic.= 2 lbs grain for 1 lb meat

Meat = 17.5% of the global CO2 production

Total Transportation global CO2 production less than meat production creates.

Wheat Barley and Canola produce twice the N2O (Nitrous Oxide) pulse crops give off, because of the N fert applied. The Carbon footprint is added on top... because of fossil C fuels used to produce the N Fert.

If we are short of food... on planet earth... what is the "new" answer?

Eat a well balanced meal with pulse protein... instead of red meat!

Corn and Soybeans are staples of our system, are theoretically helping and mitigating green house gasses... especially when compared to Red Meat Production/Consumption.

A much more environmentally sustainable meat source would be Buffalo, Elk, or Deer... on the grass lands we have...If you would like it tenderized... finish it with a pulse grain fed finishing ration!

Branding this whole system..... has proven to return close to 20%... by selling your meat produce at a price that works for your farm... and your end user!

As the old saying goes... if you are not a part of the solution... you are a part of the problem!

[dfarms11]

Tom, are you implying that in the future when carbon trading goes mainstream that cattle producers are going to need to be buying carbon credits in order to produce cattle?

[per]

I'm sure that is what he is implying. There might be other models out there that could fit into his system. How about grass finished beef. Yes, it can and is being done even here in Canada. Rather than keeping wild undulates on the grassland for no aparent purpose we could shoot 1.8 deer per cow thus being carbon neutral. The only true addition to the natural carbon cycle comes from petroleum. Sinking it back where it came from is the logical answer. Carbon trading is about as insane as the CWB. It only allows the emitters to continue emmiting except they now feel better about it.

[parsley]

per,

You go amiss thinking it's about feeling good.

Maybe it's actually about making sure you are positioned to get a "cut" of the money sliding through fingers in the buying and selling.

The CWB could step right up and open another department...Carbon Credits.

Buybacks..

Parsley

[grassfarmer]

Tom, I'm rather dubious of your figures - is the 6 lbs grain for 1 lb meat figure based on the rail weight of the cattle rather than the meat that lands on the consumers plate? I rather suspect it might be.
Anyway from my perspective it's a backwards way to look at things - beef cattle can and should be produced on land that grows grass well, but grains poorly. Chicken and pork need fossil fuel fed grains and are thus less efficient than cattle.
I can produce grassfed beef using 1.3lbs of grain for every lb of beef on the consumers plate so I guess I top the class on efficiency eh?

I think you will see very soon that people that manage their land by intensively managing permanent pasture will be receiving carbon credits far in excess of what grain producers currently receive. And rightly so - even with zero till you are burning a pile of fossil fuel to grow grains. I suspect we may see carbon credits in excess of $30 acre/year on properly managed pasture. Combine that with the lower production cost and high consumer demand for healthier red meats and I think some of us in the beef business may be in for a period of higher returns in the years ahead. And our increasing gross margins won't be swallowed by high machinery, chemical or fertiliser costs.

[TOM4CWB]

Grassfarmer,

Throw some legumes in your grass... and you do have better efficiency.

Methane produced is a problem...

The facts are that today too many folks don't care about the carbon footprint... that growing beef leaves. That you could brand and extract a premium... is the point. Consumers are paying top price for beef now... it is a realshame growers are not getting their fair portion of that trade.

There are 101 ways to Preserve and encourage sustainable eco-systems that respect the environment.

If you have devised and applied a system that is efficient and effective in meeting these goals... GREAT.

The fact is... far too many #'s of beef delivered to the meat counter at the local grocer today has traveled 1000's if not 10,000's of miles... and simply does not meet any reasonable sustainable standard!

[per]

Tom you make some valid points at least as far as the "main stream" beef is concerned. The travel miles in the US is 2000 miles from ranch to plate. I can only assume it is similar here. Consider however, what if ever acre that is now in grass and legumes and is cultivatable went back to grain production. What would that do to the main stream grain industry? What about selling grain to China and buying it back as dog food? There are unnecessary footprints in all of our backyards.

[grassfarmer]

Fair enough Tom, but I still think a number of negative things are being unfairly attached to beef production. First in terms of methane and global warming - compared to 3000 or 300 years ago the big difference on earth has been man's contribution. The cities, the combustion engine, the electricity etc. Cows are grazing today where buffalo grazed before so the methane produced is not really additional.

Bear in mind also that even with feedlot finishing of cattle it is only the slaughter generation that are eating grain. Ranch cows, replacement heifers and bulls live on grass/forage. With the pork and chicken industries they all eat grain every day. If this were taken into account it would alter the apparent efficiency of grain conversion that you quoted. They also live in heated, environment controlled barns and have their feed hauled to them every day.

Beef does generally travel too far before it's eaten but is it any worse than chicken or pork? Any idea that we can feed Chindia on prairie grown grains and pulses runs into the same transport /carbon footprint issue. Most food that is grown for global export is grown in countries with relatively low population density and shipped to countries with higher densities. New Zealand is the perfect example - low cost producer of meats and milk products but everything has to be shipped to a market overseas.

I maintain that beef cattle can be one of the most efficient ways to produce human food because they can utilise land too rough/poor to crop. If we just dropped this feedlot grain feeding we would have the most sustainable meat production system in world agriculture.