Cattle Methane Emissions in Australia - Lower Than We Thought!!

Methane emissions from Australian cattle are 24% lower than previously estimated, according to data based on eight years of research into ways to reduce emissions in livestock. 

The new method has been published late in 2015 in the journal Animal Production Science and resulted in an update of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI).

CSIRO’s Ed Charmley said the work was conducted because of concerns about the large differential between NGGI and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methane emission figures for Australian cattle, as well as doubt surrounding the accuracy of previous calculation methodologies used for cattle — particularly northern Australian cattle.  “Different methods used to calculate emissions from livestock in temperate and tropical regions were based on studies done in the 1960s and 1990s, mainly with dairy cattle,” Dr Charmley said.  “Both of these past methods were found to be likely overestimating the emissions from cattle.”

Dr Charmley said the revised method is based on improved ways of estimating ruminant methane emissions from forage-fed beef and dairy cattle, and has been tested against international defaults provided by the IPCC. The method has also brought the NGGI in line with the estimates of the IPCC, much to the delight of Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA).

“This revelation clearly shows livestock-based emissions are nowhere near what they were thought to be and will help improve the accuracy of Australia’s national greenhouse gas emissions estimates,” said MLA General Manager, On-farm Innovation Dr Matthew McDonagh.  “This is positive news for the Australian livestock sector as it seeks to continually improve its production efficiencies and demonstrate its environmental credentials.”

MLA Manager, Sustainable Feedbase,  Tom Davison added that the latest research findings from the National Livestock Methane Program (NLMP) show there are a number of simple management measures producers can implement to substantially reduce methane emissions while increasing productivity.  “Some of these are as simple as integrating leucaena into grazing systems, improving growth rates or herd reproductive performance, while other future techniques may include feeding red-algae to livestock and have been prioritised for further research,” Dr Davison said.  

We look forward to continuing to make further gains in this field for the mutual benefit of both our livestock industries and environmental sustainability.”

Read more: http://sustainabilitymatters.net.au/content/energy/news/cattle-methane-emissions-are-lower-than-we-thought-45757300#ixzz4KD4QqLEp

Humane Abattoirs?

Maybe a contradiction in terms, but improved animal welfare in abattoirs is a win-win situation.

Well treated animals before slaughter actually deliver better quality carcasses, as well as improved animal management and welfare.

One of the leaders to improve animal welfare in slaughterhouses has been Temple Grandin from the USA.  She is well  known for her work by those in beef production and the meat industry.

But just recently she has made it into The Economist magazine, an unlikely vehicle to be discussing animal welfare and abattoir design in light of improved animal management and outcomes.

It is a long article - and well worth reading as it does actually discuss some of the innovations that can improve animal welfare and abattoir performance.

See it here - 
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21671150-how-temple-grandins-designs-have-reformed-meat-industry-jungle-no-more?cid1=cust/ednew/n/n/n/2015108n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/AP/email

and think about how simple changes can improve meat quality next time you have a steak!

Some parts of the world do have a long road ahead for improvement, but many western country abattoirs are now making the changes that do really improve animal welfare before slaughter and these should offer some solace to all meat eaters that animal welfare does not have to be compromised in abattoirs. 

Remember that  "In her view, properly performed slaughter [ of cattle] is less cruel than a more natural death at the jaws of wolves"

Northern Beef Producers Not Sustainable

It is beef week in Rockhampton this week, the biggest gathering of beef producers around Australia. A simple take home message from elder statesman of the northern beef industry assessment says that over 80% of producers are not sustainable - they are slowly going broke!

Methods to fix this and raise productivity have been developing over the past 40 years in many areas, with the less variable areas of the north better positioned generally.  Gains in productivity in some herds including a few modest sized ones were outstanding - with calving especially now being around 80% and still rising, often due to quite ruthless culling of non productive cows.

Whether it is better calving %, breed selection for higher productivity, bull performance, nutrition, new labour saving technology, remote operational systems and so on, many of the solutions to bring increases in productivity are well known...........and hardly rocket science.  Yes, they need integrating but a start can be made.

Some 20% are doing a-okay, but this shocking 80% are not.

I have not seen the regional breakdown.........but there has been a few years of drought across NW Queensland, which might be part of the story.  And the drier inland areas are inherently highly variable - but to some extent that can be planned for too, it happens inevitably!

Read the article.....sobering reading, but even better read the report on the industry. 

Do something - if you are a beef producer in the north.

Northern beef producers not sustainable

VERNON GRAHAM  08 May, 2015 04:00 AM

Qld Country Life  online

Farm business consultant, Phil Holmes.

Prices received by Top End cattlemen were having no impact on their profitability

ONLY 20 per cent of beef producers in northern Australia are economically sustainable in the long term, says veteran farm business consultant Phil Holmes.

The other 80pc have almost no skills in finance and debt management, and little understanding of the key profit drivers in their herds.

They also have a poor attitude to adopting new technologies to increase the efficiency of their businesses, and have a poor capacity to manage climate risks.

Mr Holmes outlined this bleak view of the performance of beef farms in the Top End to a Meat and Livestock Australia producer forum at Beef 2015 in Rockhampton.

He draw on the findings of the latest Northern Beef Situation Analysis, which was first produced in 2013 and has now been updated. Mr Holmes was involved in the preparation of both reports, which covered 14 regions across northern Australia.

The latest report was based on 12 years of data and focused on eight performance criteria around the ability of a business to generate enough profit to cover operating expenses and capital investment, and repay debt on time while providing returns to the owners comparable to the standard average annual wage.

Businesses also needed to be able to maintain equity at 85pc, survive succession planning with the farm and family intact and the retiring generation with enough money to enjoy independent lives.

Only 20pc of beef businesses in northern Australia measured up, Mr Holmes said.

The “big picture” for the other 80pc was to lift the productivity of their herds, land and people, but he couldn’t see that happening despite the ready availability of the knowledge and research findings to achieve increased profitability.

He said the market would most likely solve the problem and suggested astute buyers may get some bargains in three or four years' time.

Many northern Australian beef producers had been swept up in the property price bubble in 2002 which had resulted in ridiculous land prices.

'High' beef prices

Equally ridiculous was current talk about high beef prices which, in real terms, were on a par with those of 1985, Mr Holmes said.

He said prices received by Top End cattlemen were having no impact on their profitability.

The big driver of profitability was productivity gains – or the lack of them for most producers – in herd performance, along with the need to reduce business costs.

Reproduction rates and genetics had to be improved and mortality rates reduced to lift productivity gains beyond their average of just one per cent a year in northern Australia’s beef sector.

Meanwhile, the industry’s terms of trade were shrinking by two per cent a year. The scene was set for many producers to go out backwards, Mr Holmes said.  A more productive herd would also reduce grazing pressure and improve environmental sustainability.  Operating costs such as labour and investment spending needed to be tailored to have the most impact in terms of productivity and profits.

The rule should be one full-time employee per 2000 AEs (adult equivalents), Mr Holmes said.

Updates for Pasturefed Cattle Assurance Scheme

Changes have been made to the Pasturefed Cattle Assurance System standards and rules, making it easier for beef producers to participate in the certification program.

Since its launch in April of 2013 more than 200 certified producers have become pasture-fed certified and many more are undertaking on-farm audits to prove claims their beef is pasture or grass raised and also to meet optional additional modules of antibiotic-free and GMO-free.

Teys Australia [ in SE Queensland], which had been the first processor to commit to the program, is now offering a 70 cents a kilogram premium for eligible cattle above the Meat Standards Australia grid price for August delivery - and has just extended its premium to 10c/kg for non-MSA grade cattle.

PCAS coordinator Lisa Cotter said it had been a great first year. Producers who had been early adopters were reaping the benefits of sometimes more than $200 a steer above MSA prices.

The Cattle Council of Australia - which had developed the program - had recently reviewed the standards and rules in line with United States Department of Agriculture updates with which the certification scheme was closely aligned, with experience from the first 12 months of the program.  Given the surge in Australian beef exports to the US this is a great plus, allowing marketing entry to claiming grass fed stature – quite a marketing plus - in the US retail market.

There were three objectives going forward in the program.

1 .   Standards need to evolve over time while still ensuring they still meet the market requirements

2       They need to be practical at the producer level and after the first year, some changes could be made to better meet this need  whilst maintaining the integrity of the program  

3        They must continue to reflect the international standards.

Standards and rules now clearly stated that the use of anthelmintics such as Ivermectin for the control of internal parasites was permissible [that is a big plus and definitely acceptable].  All topical treatments such as pinkeye ointments and back-liners were permissible to also meet the antibiotic-free module.

One of the major changes was in how life time traceability of cattle was achieved and defined.

The NLIS database was no longer the sole method to demonstrate lifetime traceability, taking into account many properties running sophisticated on-farm databases eg Practical Systems Stockbook software.

Producers must continue to show they are meeting their legal requirements of moving cattle on-and-off the NLIS database, but for example if a breeder who never trades cattle but had a ghost mob where a few animals had not been transferred, or where there were a couple of animals had tags fallen out, there can be problems.

Animals which lost their NLIS button could now still be classified as PCAS eligible if producers could prove it complied, through other management systems.

PCAS had no restrictions on producers yard-weaning their calves, with the guidelines only stipulating that animals must not be confined for more than 20 days each year.

Cereal grain at weaning is not permitted and has been an issue for some beef producers, but a lot of producers have been able to supplement by feeding hay, silage and cotton seed or canola meal, or a supplement mineral mix, depending on what is the most applicable for their business, to overcome weaning stress while maintaining certification.

A few producers have committed to the program in the NT, but with the live export market so buoyant, numbers moving to abattoirs have been low.  The program offers some real potential for the NT and indeed the whole northern cattle industry, by capitalising on the consumer demand for grass fed beef, especially if a premium price can be realised for the effort..

Every dollar helps producer viability and this option can add some dollars at sale time for stock going to an abattoir.

As consultants to industry we can assist with producers achieving these Pasturefed Cattle Assurance quality standards.

Australia's Northern Beef Industry - Maybe Unsustainable??

A recent analysis seems to be proposing that the northern Australian beef industry is unsustainable financially.

What it does not seem to say though, is that the analysis was focussed on the almost worst period in many years for the region - somewhat akin to the shock of the US stopping the purchase of northern beef in the mid 1970s, when a lot of properties went to the wall.  This period is the same as the dramatic drop in live cattle exports to Asia, especially Indonesia, a trade dramatically stopped by the government of Australia on animal cruelty grounds [arguable, at best].

NT brahman cattle for export

Since the conclusion of the report, prices and volumes have increased rapidly and are now at around A$2.30 per kg live and numbers are on track for maybe 800 000 head this year to Indonesia alone, and with new markets opening in Vietnam and China, although prices may be a bit lower.

It is all doom and gloom........BUT - a few critical points emerge from the study, one being that a herd size of 3000 head is seen as the minimum.

Read the summary below, and available on the MLA web site, as is the full report.

The Northern beef report - 2013 Northern beef situation analysis

Project code: 

B.COM.0348

Date commenced: 

June 26, 2013

End date: 

April 11, 2014

Project status: 

Completed

Description/Abstract:

The 2013 Northern Beef Report comprehensively details the performance of the northern beef industry, by region, market and herd size over the 12 years since the start of the century. On average, the profits achieved over that time frame have been low, but not trending down. However the profitability of the top performers across the industry has been trending down over the period analysed. Profit after interest is decreasing, and is mostly negative, as a result of increasing debt with no increase in profits. The majority of Northern Beef producers are not economically sustainable as they are not able to fund present and future liabilities. There is wide variation in performance across the industry; this report clearly identifies what separates the top performers and what factors determine the profitability of a beef business. This report provides analysis of a wide range of measures, providing the means for individual producers to understand their herd and business performance and to improve by setting realistic targets.

Final report summary:

• This report analyses in detail the performance of the northern beef industry for the 12 years from 2001 to 2012. Incorporating quality private and public data, this report provides a comprehensive picture of the performance of the northern beef industry by region, herd size and market.
• This report incorporates the concept of economic sustainability; clear definitions are provided and used to assess industry performance.
• On the basis of these definitions, the data indicates that the majority of northern beef businesses are not economically sustainable at present. This is not a recent phenomenon, with recent average business performance, before financing, similar to longer term averages.
• Economic sustainability takes a longer term view; in the short term many beef businesses are struggling to survive with cash deficits accumulating.
• Whilst profits before financing are largely unchanged (on average over the 12 year period analysed), after financing, performance is deteriorating due to increased debt with no increase in profit.
• Income has decreased over the period analysed, mostly a function of declining beef prices rather than a decline in productivity (kg beef/AE). Costs have reduced as income has reduced, through belt tightening, and improved labour efficiency, resulting in little change in profits.
• Profitability of the top performers has declined over the longer term, suggesting that industry profitability is decreasing.
• Excluding land value changes, return on assets has averaged less than 1% across the industry over the last 3 and 12 years.
• Comparison of profitability is made between businesses that supply different markets, namely live export, slaughter and store. When the effect of scale is excluded, producers primarily supplying the slaughter market recorded the highest profit per adult equivalent, due primarily to better productivity.
• Both total numbers of cattle in the north and stocking rates have risen, what these stocking rates are relative to carrying capacity is unknown. The extent to which environmental capital is substituting for financial capital is also unknown.
• There is considerable variation in performance between beef businesses within the industry. The Top 25% performers (across all regions, herd sizes and markets) consistently outperform the average and have businesses more likely to be economically sustainable over the long term. This indicates that there are successful business models for producing beef in northern Australia.
• The superior performance of Top 25% producers can be attributed to:
o Higher income through better herd productivity.
o Lower operating expenses, largely through better labour efficiency.
• There is no evidence that superior long term performance can be attributed to a higher average beef price received, more rainfall or better quality land.
• Operating scale (number of adult equivalents under management) has a significant influence on business performance. Operating scale, along with labour efficiency, can explain most of the differences in overhead expenses per AE between businesses.
• Lack of operating scale is a major impediment for smaller beef businesses (less than 3,000 adult equivalents), but the benefits of additional scale for larger businesses are limited with herd profits decreasing as herd sizes become very large. There appears to be an optimal operating scale range, either side of which different factors can erode performance.
• It is paramount that smaller producers understand the implications of operating scale on their viability and how best to address to it. There is mounting financial pressure for smaller producers to make structural changes to their business.
• Efficient use of labour is a key finding amongst producers in the Top 25%. Labour costs and achieving a highly efficient use of on-farm labour is a challenge that the industry must understand and work towards.
• There is no evidence of expense increases over the period analysed, this is not to say that some input costs have not increased in real terms, but any increases have been absorbed and the overall cost structure of businesses has not increased.
• Differences in income explain more of the differences in profit between average and Top 25% performers than expenses. Nearly all differences in income per AE between herds are attributable to productivity differences.
• Nearly all productivity differences between herds can be attributed to the better performers achieving:
o Higher reproductive rates
o Lower mortality rates
o Heavier sale weights
• The findings of this report now make it possible to construct a very clear roadmap for economic sustainability for a northern beef business, embracing both location and target market. This roadmap provides clear guidelines on factors critical to income (productivity) and expenses (scale & labour efficiency).
• This analysis is consistent with other recent and more targeted studies of herd productivity (reproduction and mortality). This analysis also finds wide variation between businesses in these measures of herd productivity and report that improvements in herd productivity have a big influence on overall business performance.
• There is wide variation across the industry in what it costs to produce a kilogram of beef (cost of production) and this analysis shows that there is significant scope for improvement for a lot of producers. There is far less variation in beef price received and much less scope for individual producers to improve beef price received. Therefore it could be said that it is the high cost of production that is the main cause of low profits for the majority of northern beef producers.

Researcher name:

Bush AgriBusiness Pty Ltd, Holmes & Co.   

Brazil - Compatriot of North Australia?

A recent article on the ABC web site about Brazil opens up some ideas about synergies between northern Australia and Brazil.


products of Brazil

The article is here - http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4768336.html .

Climatically, much of Northern Australia and Brazil are similar, especially the northern parts of Brazil, and the more southern area are maybe more similar to SE Queensland, as broad generalisations. 

Brazil agriculture

It is not without some strong parallels, that the Embraer aircraft of Brazil are well represented in commercial RPT fleets across north Australia, with Air North a significant operator of the aircraft - they are operationally designed to better suit tropical operational areas, and operate in remote and less technologically able areas; they are good aircraft.

The Brazilian mining giants including Vale are rapidly digging iron ore holes in Brazil, along with some in Australia, and looking at other mineral operations as well.  They are major competitors to Australian companies such as BHP Billiton and Rio, as well as Xstrata [ now Glencore] in international markets as well as emerging mining countries, eg Africa.

Both Australia and Brazil, are sized similarly, with large parts of the areas in the tropics.  Brazil is certainly a major cattle producer, even if less proportionally is exported than Australia, and disease issues also restrict options for export.  It would be a worry for Australian beef exports, boxed or live, if Brazil [as well as Argentina] ever got their act together and that region emerged as a serious, long term competitor.  They might in relation to China, still.

Australia's abattoirs have significant involvement by JBS, the Brazilian company that is probably the wold's biggest meat processing business.

There is a huge agribusiness system operating in Brazil, and Nufarm [ Australia's home grown agrochemical and seed company] is operating widely in Brazil.  It is likely that the r and D coming from Brazil in relation to variety development [ peanut,soybean, corn, sorghum etc],  seed technology may be applicable in Australia, or at least adaptable, and home grown technology including precision agriculture and controlled traffic systems are certainly of widening interest in Brazil and Argentina.

Socially the Brazilian economy is less endowed with support systems such as operate in Australia - with our social support, welfare and medical [ Medicare system] good examples where the Australian people are much better supported.

Should Australia, and north Australia especially, be seeking to improve and develop major interaction with Brazil?  Surely knowing much more about a competitor is useful.  It is true some activity is occurring, but increasing the tempo of those interactions might be considered a very smart option.

Agriculture in Australia needs to get Tough - or Does It?

http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/ag-needs-to-get-tough/2650082.aspx?storypage=0

This will get you to the original as published in the online edition of Qld Country Life, which was however copied from the AFR [ which is paywalled].

The headline was Ag needs to Get Tough""

11 Mar, 2013 09:03 AM

ALAN MITCHELL

BY 2020, Ken Henry says, Asia's middle class will have more than trebled in size to 1.7 billion people. By 2030 it will have almost doubled again, and it will account for 60 per cent of global middle class consumption. With that growth will come an increase in demand for the kind of food we produce and eat.

Martin Parkinson, Henry's successor as Treasury secretary, says the next positive shock wave from Asia will be felt by Australian agriculture.  "We're likely to see a significant increase in demand, particularly from China, for high-end agricultural products like fruit, dairy, high-grade meat and seafood," he says.  This will be a huge opportunity for farmers, investors and the economy.  But to fully capitalise on a boom you have to be able to meet the demand, and ABARES says we will need a change in agricultural production to do it.

First, it says, we have to reverse the slowdown in farm productivity, which for broadacre farming has been negative for the past decade. We also need to better target consumer needs in fast-growing markets, especially Asia.

Reviving productivity growth will be harder than it looks. Productivity has been negative temporarily because of droughts, but there has also been a more permanent slowdown.

Broadacre and dairy productivity was boosted by the major reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, including the dismantling of statutory marketing and price support schemes, labour market reforms and the phasing out of tariffs on imported agricultural products.  There were also big improvements in technology, including larger, more efficient sowing and harvesting machines, and greater automation and mechanisation of dairy production.  These advances, in turn, led to industry consolidation and an increase in average farm sizes.

But it seems the big gains from these changes have been largely realised, and an acceleration of productivity growth will require new drivers.  So where do we find them?

The opposition's Andrew Robb would suggest the northern food bowl. However, that is not on ABARES's to-do list, possibly because the idea has already been expertly examined and rejected.

The Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce reported in 2009 that "contrary to popular belief, water resources in the north are neither unlimited, nor wasted. Equally, the potential for northern Australia to become a 'food bowl' is not supported by evidence."  Robb, who is heading a federal Coalition taskforce to reassess the merits of the food bowl proposal, insists that there is "a patchwork of opportunities right across the north" that, with "sensible water catchment", could double Australia's agricultural production.

With rising global food prices, there are almost certainly development opportunities in the north that would justify their environmental and other social costs. But an election-year Coalition task force is not the mechanism to find them.

What the federal opposition should promise is a Productivity Commission inquiry to re-evaluate the issue.

In the absence of Robb's economic miracle, ABARES warns productivity growth will have to come from on-farm innovation and advances in plant and animal genetics, and technologies that enable better farm management and increase energy and water efficiency.

State moratoriums on the commercial release of genetically modified crops have limited private sector investment, and ABARES makes a plea for transparent and evidence-based decision-making by the states.

Genetically modified food crops are being adopted overseas, including in the United States, Canada, China, Argentina and Brazil, and have the potential to transform agricultural productivity in Australia. Unfortunately, there seems to be no task force of federal politicians ready to take on that battle.

ABARES also argues that reduced government spending on agricultural research and development since the 1970s has contributed to the slowdown in farm productivity growth. That decline in funding should be reversed.

But there is more than the politicians can, and should, do.

There is scope for further gains from farm rationalisation. The Productivity Commission states the 20 per cent of most-efficient broadacre farms accounted for nearly two-thirds of total production in 2005. The remaining 80 per cent of farms produced only 36 per cent of output.

Drought should naturally force the rationalisation of the farm sector into larger, geographically diversified enterprises. However, governments have allowed drought relief to preserve economically inefficient operators.

Another useful agent of change should be foreign investment. And given the need for the agricultural sector to target consumers in Asia, corporate investors from China should be particularly useful.  That is not how some farmers see it, of course. But when all the emotive nonsense about Chinese investment is stripped away, their real concern seems to be that Chinese investment will excessively bid up the price of farm land and reduce the opportunity for the next generation of Australian farmers to carry on the family farms.

There might be some truth in that, but it is in Australia's interests for small farms to be replaced by larger corporate producers.

If agriculture is the next big thing, Australia cannot afford to protect undersized, under-capitalised, overgrazed family farms from the economic pressures of the global food market.

If anything, the federal government should increase the pressure on unprofitable farmers to get off the land, and it should demand that the states do the same. For example, grazing leases on Crown land should be put on a proper, arm's-length commercial basis, and producers who cannot manage their leases at a profit should be pushed out, just as a retail centre owner expels unsuccessful retailers.

In the case of the Crown leases in Queensland's Upper Burdekin, the benefits of such a policy would extend beyond agriculture to tourism.

According to the Productivity Commission, most of the sediments, nitrogen and phosphorous that wash into Great Barrier Reef lagoon come from cattle grazing, and a big part of the problem is overstocking by graziers who are fundamentally unviable or who have succumbed to the moral hazard of drought relief. "

--------------------------------------

Reader comments were vehement that this was a load of codswallop.  But some issues do require a more detailed examination.

Yes, Australian agriculture needs capital, but most think that should not be a selling off of the farm to sovereign entitities without any real need to be accountable for the product and the offshoring of the profits, and job replacement with foreign staff.

Many are also wary of large corporate operators with remote control, and they have not always been that successful, while some larger locally owned properties are.  There is also a place for smaller operators with specialised production [ and who can grow or encourage others into an industry], and truly, that might be a very profitable area with a number of classic operations noted - quinoa production in Tasmania as well as chia in the Ord River area.  There will be others.  One concept does not fit all!

As regards crown leases - well, it could be a pandora's box if enterprise change is envisaged as it can open these to land claim.  And that coud be a protracted event, and overall unproductive in the meantime.

The decline in agricultural R and D is a key issue, and there are a few tiny signs there may be some glimmer of change with recent large investments in several key centres in NSW and SA.  But there is little happening in the north, and with live cattle exports screwed, this will take some time to reverse.  Almost no public entity is increasing investment in this sort of r and D in the north of Australaia.

Export of chilled and frozen beef to some markets will increase, but it is unlikely Australia will improve beef sales - live or processed - to Indonesia anytime soon [ think 5 years plus], and that alone is impacting monumentally on pastoral production properties and their value.  There is a role for GM but refer back to the R and D equation........little has been done, and to also raise the performance and quality of varieties, including adapted vegetable crops to warmer regions will take time.

Look at agricultural productivity growth in Brazil - and that has resulted from investing in R and D.  May be we need to plagarise some of this for use in north Australia.  Climatically there are quite a few regions with similarities.

 

Indonesian Meat Market Rumblings - Diverse Views Abound

Recent interviews with senior agricultural economists in Indonesia seem to caste doubts on the ability of local production to meet demands within the next five years.

This is in contrast to some official government views that indicate all is well - or if beef is short -" to eat rabbit".

Indications are already being discussed that Australia's live cattle imports to Indonesia will be reduced again this year and next year.

Most observers seem to be aware that beef prices have risen very substantially in and around Jakarta, and that is causing a lot of angst to consumers.  Eating rabbit rendang just does not just seem right, with the traditional beef rendang seemingly on the outer, due to costs.

More on this issue here, based on interviews in Indonesia.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3695806.htm

The Indonesian government might not like this type of reporting but I think we are now approaching a time when the gloves are really coming off, and local issues will be even more apparent in Indonesia.

There is a willing supplier [Australia], willing buyers, now with better slaughter procedures, but Indonesian official thinking does not now, nor did not then, like how Australia went about the whole issue of cattle export to Indonesia.

Australia will suffer, is suffering, and there does not seem any light ahead.  With Northern Territory cattle producers suffering most, and with dramatic falls in cash flows and NT property prices.  Even a new abattoir now planned to open late in 2013 near Darwin, will not fix this problem.

Updated Reports Seem to Confirm Mad Cow Disease [ BSE] in Brazil

A convoluted story some 2 years in gestation it seems, yet recent reports from a number of sources would seem to confirm that Brazil has some BSE in the beef herd.

Recently a number of SE Asian and Middle East countries have essentially banned further imports of Brazilian beef, and more countries seem to be joining the list.

A bit of a disaster for Brazil with suspected cattle in Parana state, in the rich agricultural areas of the SW of Brazil.

There are numerous media reports, many from December 2012 onwards when first indications of confirmation seems to have reached the media.  A lot more since then.

What might this mean for both Australia and the US in relation to Asian markets?

A relevant media release is here -
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/12/boys-from-brazil-kept-mad-cow-secret-for-two-years/

and here -
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/01/three-more-countries-place-restrictions-on-brazilian-beef-for-bse-concerns/

http://beefmagazine.com/foreign-trade/world-s-response-brazilian-bse-case-measured?page=1

This story is evolving steadily, with more information likely over coming weeks.  The next report is from OIE, and is less alarmist, but I am sure that many countries will still close off beef from Brazil.

http://www.oie.int/for-the-media/press-releases/detail/article/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-bse-case-in-brazil-frequently-asked-questions-and-answers/

Brazil is hoping the next meeting of OIE will clarify their status - hopefully as low risk.  But markets are funny at times, with customers maybe preferring non Brazilian beef........no matter what.  Perception is an odd characteristic. 

Bribery and Corruption Rampant in Indonesian Beef Trade

Late last week this story hit the local headlines in Australia, with the detaining of Indonesian nationals in Jakarta apparently attempting to bribe Indonesian government officials over the beef quotas recently established.

It seems it has been around frozen beef quotas, not live cattle but, if you have done business in the country it is known that corruption and bribery have been relatively common.  Sure, attempts are made to eliminate bribery, but more recently, these anti-corruption practices  are starting to reach into relatively high places.

The ABC and the Sydney Morning Herald have run articles on the topic, and, being away overseas, I missed them.

See below is the SMH article -
-------------------
AN INDONESIAN company with deep links to the Australian beef industry has been caught red-handed offering bribes to an Indonesian politician, apparently to circumvent the country's strict quota on beef imports.

A number of Australian exporters use the company, Indoguna Utama, to ship beef to Indonesia, and one company, Mulwarra Export in Sydney, is part-owned by Indoguna's founder, Elizabeth Liman.

Two directors of Indoguna, Juardi Effendi and Arya Abdi Effendi, were arrested by Indonesia's Corruption Eradication Commission at a city hotel on Wednesday with 1 billion rupiah ($101,000) in cash in the car boot.

They are alleged to have been on their way to deliver a bribe to Lutfi Hasan Ishaaq, the president of the Islamic political party PKS.

Indonesia's agriculture minister, Suswono, represents the party in President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's government.

Anti-corruption officers sealed the office of the head of Mr Suswono's department, the director-general of livestock and animal health, as part of the investigation.

Mr Suswono imposed strict beef import quotas in the wake of Australia's short-lived ban on live cattle exports in 2011, on the pretext that Indonesia wanted to become self-sufficient in beef.

The quota, applying to live cattle as well as boxed beef, gutted the export trade with Australia and has resulted in shortages of beef in Indonesia, soaring prices and the inclusion of pork in traditional beef meatballs.

The commission's deputy chairman, Bambang Widjojanto, said the bribe was an attempt by Indoguna Utama to get access to a larger import allowance.

The arrests raise the question whether the quota - 32,000 tonnes of boxed beef this year - has become simply a bribe-raising exercise for PKS, which is part of Indonesia's governing coalition, with two cabinet ministers, including the communications minister.

Indoguna Utama lists five Australian exporters as ''partners'', including Andrews Meat in the Barossa Valley, Jack's Creek Wagyu Beef in Queensland, and Western Meat Packers Group in Western Australia. Mulwarra Export's owner, Greg Darwell, told Fairfax Media on Thursday that Elizabeth Liman was a passive minority investor in the company. He said he knew nothing about the bribery allegations, and they surprised him. ''I personally, in the 16 years that I've been owner and runner of Mulwarra, have not directly seen any corruption,'' he said.  His company's exports to Indonesia had dropped by 20 per cent under the quota but, he said, it had picked up markets elsewhere, and was growing.

Another Australian exporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was ''common knowledge'' bribes were ''part of the trade up there, on a daily basis, quota or no quota''.  ''They're going to desperate measures to get beef into the country,'' the exporter said.

A spokesman for the Corruption Eradication Commission, Johan Budi, said its investigation would not extend to any Australian companies, and he did not yet know if the agriculture minister would be questioned.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/beef-importer-with-australian-links-caught-in-quota-bribe-case-20130131-2dnh6.html#ixzz2JuFyh6JN

-------------
This is fairly serious stuff, but the implications are even more sinister with overtones that the beef quota might have been manipulated downwards in broad terms, to elicit bribes from importers, to get around the system.  That might be described as fairly serious organised high level corruption.

Most market analysts believe that Indonesia cannot produce enough beef themselves to meet market demand - by a long way, and for quite a period of time yet.  Even if production went up domestically [ rather than by feeding imported animals] sheer logistics would be inadequate to move animals from eastern areas where beef production is increasing, to the volume demand markets of west Java.

It is a sensitive issue, and local beef prices in Indonesia have risen substantially since curbs were placed on importing both live cattle and frozen beef - with particularly greater rises in low quality meat cuts, those used and favoured by many Indonesians.

This story has quite some way to go yet, I am sure.

New Cattle Parasite Concerns Across Australia

Cattle parasite spread further than thought

A parasite linked to dogs and responsible for an estimated $30 million loss to the national cattle industry each year is present throughout Australia, a University of Sydney study has revealed.

Previously this parasite was believed to be active only on the east coast of Australia and passed on mainly by domestic dogs. The new findings, published in the latest edition of Veterinary Parasitology, show other dog populations are infected and have important implications for vaccination development.


“The research also raises crucial questions about which other domestic and native animals could be affected by the parasite,” said Dr Jan Slapeta, the lead author of the study, from the Faculty of Veterinary Science.


The Neospora caninum parasite, passed from dogs to cattle, is carried in a dormant state in cows. When the cow becomes pregnant the parasite becomes active and can cause an abortion.


If instead the cow with the parasite has an apparently healthy female calf the parasite can be silently passed on to that healthy animal and give it a much higher chance of aborting in its first few pregnancies.


Dogs become hosts to the parasite after eating infected meat (from a variety of animals).


“Until now abortions caused by Neospora caninum have been identified along the eastern coast of Australia and associated with domestic dogs known to harbour the parasite,” said Dr Graeme Brown, a senior author of the study, also from the Faculty of Veterinary Science at the University.


“What we did for the first time was look at two other dog populations from across Australia – wild dogs and remote Aboriginal community dogs (which live in varying degrees of domestication). We found that both populations have a high degree of exposure.”


Two important conclusions come from that result.


The first is that the range of the parasite is not confined to the east coast of Australia but extends across the country, placing more of Australia’s cattle market at risk than previously realised.


Secondly the presence of the parasite in wild dogs means Neospora caninum has a previously unrecognised ability to infect native wildlife. Its possible impact on Australian ecosystems is therefore unknown and likely to have been underestimated.


“Understanding the interactions of native wildlife, the cattle industry and dog populations will help our efforts to fight this infection. Most importantly this new knowledge about its distribution and agents can underpin the development of an effective vaccine,” Dr Brown said.


[sourced from online Qld Country Life]
-----

This development highlights the need for invoking the cliche about eternal vigilance........you never know what might be next.

Whether this is an issue in northern beef herds is unknown, but it seems to be more of an issue of relevance along the east coast where its presence has been known for some time.

It also once again highlights a need to better manage dogs, both domestic and feral, nd wild dogs including potentially dingoes [ and in other countries possibly coyotes and wolves] as all seem to be hosts to the disease.  What is not stated though, is how to effectively protect or treat the issue in dogs......with clindamycin seen as a possible control; the disease may also kill pups.


Wikipedia has more information, including some concerns about birds being implicated in transmision of the disease in cattle as well.  More problems!


The link below goes to a very thorough review of neosporosis in cattle, and is the full article, covering the disease and practical issues around management and control.

http://cmr.asm.org/content/20/2/323.full   - article on neosporosis.

Northern Beef - Production: Making Cows Perform

Productivity among beef herds is about cow productivity.  No calves means no productivity!!

In tropical australia low calving and weaning percentages have long been blamed as a key factor for poor production.  Yes, bulls are needed too - but you need to raise calves.

A recent major project has been slowly releasing some of the first data analyses.  While some of it is not necessarily new, it does put hard data out about major influences and how some producers can do things much better - even in the same area.  and it covers nearly 80000 - yes 80000........cows.

That has to be a significant learning experience for others.

The media report is below.


What makes a Cash Cow?


17 May, 2012 04:00 AM


WITH northern Australia home to the majority of the national breeding herd, it's fitting that a research project on an equally epic scale comprising more than 78,000 head is producing some fascinating insights into cattle fertility across Queensland, the Northern Territory and the north-west of Western Australia.

On the eve of Beef Australia 2012 in Rockhampton last week, more than 100 producers, vets and other researchers involved in the Meat and Livestock Australia-funded Cash Cow project met in Rockhampton to discuss the project's ongoing findings.

The project has, over four years from 2008 to 2011, monitored the reproductive performance of 78,256 breeding females located on 75 commercial beef cattle properties between St George in Queensland and the Kimberley in WA.

It's one of the largest projects ever funded by MLA and has been conducted by researchers from the University of Queensland, DEEDI, Northern Territory Department of Resources, and AusVet Animal Health Services, in collaboration with cattle veterinarians, cattle producers, and data capture provider Outcross Performance.

It set out to answer three main questions - how can producers readily and accurately determine how their breeding herd is performing; why do some breeding mobs achieve expected levels of performance while others don't; and why do some breeding females readily become pregnant after calving and wean a calf while others take much longer to become pregnant or fail to wean a calf.

Project leader, Professor Michael McGowan of the School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, said an important finding was that overall half of the breeding mobs monitored achieved weaning rates of less than 70 percent. In the extensive breeding regions of North Queensland, the NT and Kimberley, half of the mobs achieved weaning rates of less than 60pc. However, the top performing 25pc of mobs achieved weaning rates of 80pc.

"Our study has shown that there are herds that are achieving good beef output in what would be considered poorer quality country and they're clearly achieving that through good management," Prof McGowan said.


"The significant thing is that with good management you can achieve good levels of beef output in many of the regions of northern Australia."


Some of the factors which have already been identified from the analysis of the Cash Cow data as having a big impact on the proportion of cows back in calf by four months after calving are:

•Whether a female successfully reared her last pregnancy or not.
•Body condition score at the previous year's pregnancy diagnosis muster.
•The ratio of average faecal phosphorus to metabolisable energy ratio during the first three months of lactation.
•Period of the year of the previous calving.
•Timing of onset and duration of the wet season.

Some of the factors significantly affecting the losses from confirmed pregnancy to weaning which have been identified are:
•Whether a female successfully reared her last pregnancy or not.
•Exposure to hot very hot weather during the month of calving.
•Period of the year when calving occurred.
•The ratio of average crude protein to dry-matter digestibility during the last trimester of pregnancy.
•Body condition score at the time of first annual muster prior to when calving occurred.

Prof McGowan said the Cash Cow analysis team would continue to study the Cash Cow database, which contains more than six million bits of data.

"Technically the research phase of the project will be completed at the end of the year," he said. "We've identified a number of important factors and we will be doing further work over the next couple of months to better understand what is happening with these factors and also identify further factors that may be affecting performance.  "For the first time we have real data, derived from commercial herds, defining the beef output from breeding herds measured as kilos of beef per adult equivalent.  "There is quite a range, but we're also looking at the efficiency with which that beef is produced."

Once complete, the project will among other things, generate an internationally unique database enabling northern Australian beef producers and their advisers to accurately model the potential economic outcome of changing reproductive management.


[ partially sourced Qld Country Life online]

New Abattoirs for North Australia? How Many are Viable?

The need for one or more abattoirs in the north of Australia has been an issue for many years now, following the demise of the older abattoirs that were around in the 1970s and 1980s. They were at Darwin, Katherine, Wyndham and Derby – all gone!

AAco has developed a plan for a new facility about 50kms S of Darwin, and recently there are noises about another abattoir mooted for Cloncurry. This has been developed as the preferred site by a Queensland based task force, and the issue is discussed here - http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/livestock/cattle/northern-abattoirs-make-their-case/2465687.aspx?storypage=0

While AAco is well advanced with the Darwin site, and has done a lot of work on the facility planning and engineering, it is not an absolute goer ......yet. A site close to Darwin has significant advantages in relation to the logistics, both for the animals coming in, staff, and the export of product, as well as a reasonably large sized local market worth developing in future years. So far it is understood all production will be exported as ground beef. At present, almost all NT beef for consumption is imported, so there is a lot of potential for that market itself, at least for prime cuts.

Last year’s debacle over the export of live cattle is a searing memory for northern producers of beef. There are already plans by many to change to a slightly different animal – one that offers possible options – live export, or domestic markets.

These animals are likely to have less % of Brahman genes, while still retaining the advantages the zebu genes confer. Not to mention a few other animal types such as Boran with superior reproduction levels and a few others in the mix.

Producers do not want to get caught again, especially as there are coming changes in the Indonesian market in relation to possible self sufficiency – although many believe this to really be quite a few years away, if at all. But, no one wants to get something sprung upon them like 2011.

Can the northern region support one or two or even three abattoirs? There is also serious talk about some sort of facility in the northwest – Broome is talked about, but so too has Derby.

I think there will be new abattoirs; the question is where and how many? And how will they operate given the still problematical conditions of access across the north for at least 3 months of the year, sometimes longer.

US Cattle Identification Systems Seen to Be Poor

While the Australian NLIS system is not perfect, it is in place and generally works ok, and is now part of a solution for export of live cattle to Indonesia.

But cattle identification in the US [a serious meat competitor to Australia] has recently been of some concern to researchers.

And the following brief report sums this up nicely -
Economists at Kansas State University have released a study that examined cattle identification (ID) and traceability systems around the world and found that the US lags behind both major beef exporting nations and beef importers in the development and implementation of cattle ID systems, according to Glynn Tonsor, a Kansas State economist involved in the study.

The implications "are particularly troubling," he said.

US cattle prices last year were record high, in large part due to beef exports, but the comparative disadvantage regarding U.S. cattle ID "puts these and future US beef export gains at risk," he said.

Furthermore, U.S. consumers have largely trusted US beef producers and have not pushed the industry to adopt cattle ID, he said, but this may soon change as consumers become increasingly interested in traceability.

The US beef industry would be well served to give implementations in this study "serious thought," Tonsor said, before a lack of ID and traceability costs business at home and abroad.

Source: http://www.feedstuffs.com

There are a few novels that paint a grim picture of the US animal abattoir system and offer some dubious views of the security and integrity of the system. And there have been a few serious issues in relation to meat quality at consumer outlets, especially fast food venues, in recent years in the USA. And remember, the US had meat exports banned to a number of Asian countries for some years over mad cow disease.

As said, NLIS is not absolute, but it generally now works. It seems that all is not well in the US however!!