Feedstuffs is part of the Informa Markets Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Sitemap


Articles from 2015 In October


Properly manage silage to aid dairy cow health

Properly manage silage to aid dairy cow health

Properly manage silage to aid dairy cow health
DESPITE dairy producers' best efforts, sometimes silage will succumb to yeasts, molds and other microbes that cause spoilage.

Including this damaged feed at low rates may be tempting, but even small amounts can disrupt the cow's normal rumen function -- and can lead to reproduction problems or impaired cattle health.

"Disposing of the spoiled silage can feel like throwing money away, but it may be the best solution to avoid further problems," Dr. Bob Charley, forage products manager for Lallemand Animal Nutrition, said. "Molds in feed can cause respiratory problems, reduce intake and negatively impact production. Furthermore, some common spoilage molds may produce mycotoxins under certain circumstances, which can cause serious health issues."

Charley warned that feeding even small quantities of spoiled silage can lead to drops in intake, acidosis-like symptoms and reduced fiber and dry matter digestibility. In dairy herds, reduced milk production and milk fat also are common.

According to Charley, a study by Kansas State University incorporated various levels of spoiled silage into the ration of steers and found that including just 5.4% of badly spoiled silage in the ration reduced dry matter intake by 1.3 lb. per day (Figure).

"Limiting or preferably eliminating spoiled silage is the best bet for maintaining production, herd health and preserving valuable feedstuffs," Charley said. "There's no substitute for the basics of good silage management."

To achieve this goal, he recommends the following:

* Start with good-quality forage, harvesting it at the right stage of maturity and moisture level;

* Set the theoretical length of cut to achieve the right chop length, and check the actual particle size distribution;

* Treat all forages for silage with an inoculant backed by independent research data to ensure that it will achieve a dairy operation's objectives;

* Pack the silage well to make sure air is excluded;

* Cover and seal the silage well immediately, taking care to repair any damage to silage plastic during storage, and

* Manage feedout by removing 6 in. or more from the face, keeping the face straight and clean and avoiding leaving any drop (compost) piles.

"Spoilage yeasts occur naturally in varying numbers on all pre-harvest crops," Charley noted. "If these yeasts become dominant, they can start the process of aerobic deterioration -- raising the forage pH, which allows for further spoilage by molds and bacteria. To win the microbial war in your silages, it's important to use proven forage inoculants containing fast-acting, efficient, homolactic acid bacteria. This loads up your silage with an army of billions of these good microbes and helps ensure that the right balance is in place."

 

Market dairy cows

Dairy producers need to remember that they also are in the beef business. In fact, according to recent U.S. Department of Agriculture survey data, market or cull dairy cows represent about 6-8% of the beef produced in the U.S. annually.

With that in mind, it's imperative that only healthy dairy cows -- those whose meat is fit for human consumption that have completed all mandated withdrawal times for any drugs administered -- are culled for the beef supply.

"For now and in the foreseeable future, the dairy industry will be providing a significant portion of beef to consumers in the U.S.," Zoetis dairy technical services senior veterinarian Dr. Richard Wallace said. "Healthy food is one of our three tenets of dairy wellness, and we call on dairy producers to employ the same commitment to high-quality meat that they give to producing quality milk."

An important part of marketing quality beef is making sure cows do not have drug residues in their meat when they go to market, he said.

"There are many reasons residue violations occur, but most are because of mistakes made at the farm level," Wallace said. "Not keeping accurate records is a big contributor to violations. For instance, if producers or their employees don't know when a treatment was given, they might ship or milk the treated cow before she should have entered the food supply."

Another leading cause of drug residue violations is when producers use a product for purposes not listed on its Food & Drug Administration-approved label.

Any extra-label drug use should occur only when necessary and under the guidance of a veterinarian, and accurate records of proper withdrawal and withholding times must be kept. Dairy producers should take active steps to ensure that their employees always follow label directions.

"It is important that producers work together with their veterinarian to continue to improve the overall quality of milk and meat products," Wallace said. "Pay attention to label indications, and take extra care to ensure all cows bound for the food supply are healthy. Ultimately, it's a matter of making sure we are producing a safe, quality animal and aren't violating trust from consumers."

 

Reducing heat stress

Reducing dairy cow stress and maintaining good health is essential to help sustain a consistent and high level of milk yield.

A research study presented at the American Dairy Science Assn./American Society of Animal Science (ASAS) Joint Annual Meeting in Orlando, Fla., demonstrated that an immune system-supporting nutritional supplement (OmniGen-AF) can help protect dairy cows from the effects of heat stress by supporting normal immune function.

The research was presented as poster T25 by Nicole Burdick Sanchez et al. and was selected as a "Presidential Pick" at the meeting by ASAS president Dr. Debra Aaron, a University of Kentucky animal sciences professor.

The objective of the research was to study the differences in response of dairy cows supplemented with the patented product to various hormonal challenges when housed at different temperature-humidity indexes (THIs). Two groups of Holstein cows were housed in temperature-controlled modules with THIs set less than or greater than 72 -- the level at which dairy cows begin to experience the effects of heat stress.

Blood samples and rectal temperatures were monitored during the 10-day study, which was conducted at the University of Arizona-Tucson, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service's Livestock Issues Research Unit in Lubbock, Texas.

Results showed a reduction in stress hormones in the supplemented cows versus the control group. The researchers concluded that supplementing lactating dairy cows with the immune system-supporting product may help prevent the negative effects of heat stress on infection-fighting white blood cells.

This research reinforces results of earlier studies demonstrating the positive impact the product has on dairy cow health and milk production during periods of heat stress.

Volume:87 Issue:30

WHO clarifies meat/cancer link

The World Health Organization (WHO) said Oct. 29 it has received a number of queries, expressions of concern and requests for clarification following the publication of a report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) relating to processed meat and colorectal cancer.

According to the WHO statement, IARC’s review confirms the recommendation in WHO’s 2002 "Diet, Nutrition & the Prevention of Chronic Diseases" report that advised people to moderate consumption of preserved meat to reduce the risk of cancer.

The latest IARC review does not ask people to stop eating processed meats but indicates that reducing consumption of these products can reduce the risk of colorectal cancer, WHO said.

WHO has a standing group of experts who regularly evaluate the links between diet and disease. Early next year, this group will meet to begin looking at the public health implications of the latest science and the place of processed meat and red meat within the context of an overall healthy diet, WHO added.

IARC was established 50 years ago through a resolution of the World Health Assembly as a functionally independent cancer agency under the auspices of WHO, but its program of work is approved and financed by its participating states, WHO said.

Ingredient market prices, 11/2/15

Ingredient market prices, 11/2/15

The following prices, which include delivery, were obtained Oct. 28 from feed and grain vendors in the U.S. and Canada. The prices represent current trading values but are not guaranteed. Second column shows the amount of change since the previous week. Prices of certain products can vary depending on the processing method used. N-Nominal. N/A-Price not available.

OILSEED PRODUCTS

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Soybean meal

 

 

(high-protein)

 

 

Atlanta

400.00

-15.00

Boston

352.00

-

Buffalo

360.00

-12.00

Chicago

320.00

-10.00

Delmarva

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC

410.00

-15.00

Ft. Worth

364.00

-

Kansas City

305.00

-10.00

Los Angeles

355.00

-5.00

Memphis

N/A

-

Minneapolis

279.60

-10.40

Okeechobee

400.00

-15.00

Portland

358.35

-2.40

San Francisco

355.00

-5.00

Twin Falls

370.00

-8.00

Soybean meal

 

 

(low-protein)

 

 

Atlanta

390.00

-15.00

Boston

347.00

-

Buffalo

356.00

-12.00

Chicago

308.00

-10.00

Delmarva

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC

400.00

-15.00

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Kansas City

305.00

-10.00

Los Angeles

335.00

-5.00

Memphis

N/A

-

Minneapolis

N/A

-

Okeechobee

390.00

-15.00

Portland

N/A

-

San Francisco

335.00

-5.00

Soybean hulls

 

 

Atlanta

220.00

-

Buffalo*

185.00

-

Chicago

160.00

5.00

Fayetteville, NC

240.00

-

Ft. Worth*

185.00

-

Los Angeles

175.00

-

Minneapolis

130.00

-20.00

Okeechobee

220.00

-

San Francisco

175.00

-

Twin Falls

N/A

-

* unpelleted

 

 

Whole cottonseed

 

 

Atlanta

280.00

-

Buffalo

307.00

-3.00

Chicago

308.00

-3.00

Delmarva

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC

280.00

-

Ft. Worth

300.00

-

Los Angeles

394.00

-6.00

Lubbock

275.00

10.00

Memphis

270.00

-10.00

Okeechobee

297.00

-

Portland

387.50

2.50

San Francisco

394.00

-6.00

Twin Falls

390.00

-

Cottonseed meal

 

 

Atlanta

297.00

-

Chicago

328.00

-2.00

Delmarva

297.00

-

Fayetteville NC

297.00

-

Ft. Worth

335.00

10.00

Kansas City

340.00

5.00

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Lubbock

305.00

15.00

Memphis

300.00

10.00

Okeechobee

307.00

-

San Francisco

273.00

-5.00

Cottonseed hulls

 

 

Atlanta

260.00

30.00

Chicago

265.00

-

Fayetteville NC

260.00

30.00

Ft. Worth

225.00

-5.00

Okeechobee

297.00

30.00

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Lubbock

190.00

-5.00

San Francisco

273.00

-

Canola meal

 

 

Buffalo

256.00

-22.00

Minneapolis

239.90

-22.80

Los Angeles

276.00

-2.00

Montreal

246.00

-15.00

Portland

254.85

-2.40

San Francisco

276.00

-2.00

Twin Falls

262.00

-10.00

Vancouver

215.00

-10.00

Sunflower seed meal

 

 

Fargo

210.00

-

Minneapolis

200.00

-15.00

Linseed  meal

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Chicago

240.00

-

Fargo

245.00

30.00

Fayetteville NC

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

251.00

-

Kansas City

270.00

-5.00

Minneapolis

215.00

-

Safflower meal

 

 

Los Angeles

N/A

-

San Francisco

145.00

-

ANIMAL BYPRODUCTS

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Meat and bone meal

 

 

(ruminant)

 

 

Buffalo

N/A

-

Chicago

298.00

-

Delmarva

330.00

-20.00

Fayetteville NC

320.00

-10.00

Ft. Worth

250.00

-20.00

Kansas City

265.00

-10.00

Los Angeles

310.00

-

Memphis

310.00

-10.00

Minneapolis

275.00

-

Portland

275.00

-5.00

San Francisco

310.00

-

Meat and bone meal

 

 

(porcine)

 

 

Fayetteville NC

330.00

-10.00

Los Angeles

322.40

-30.00

Memphis

320.00

-10.00

Minneapolis

310.00

-

Flash-dried blood meal

 

 

(ruminant)

 

 

Fayetteville NC

825.00

50.00

Los Angeles

800.00

-

Memphis

800.00

50.00

Minneapolis

800.00

25.00

Flash-dried blood meal

 

 

(porcine)

 

 

Fayetteville NC

825.00

50.00

Memphis

800.00

50.00

Minneapolis

825.00

-

Poultry byproduct meal

 

 

(feed grade)

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC

325.00

-

Ft. Worth

305.00

-20.00

Kansas City

N/A

-

Los Angeles

429.00

-

Memphis

325.00

-

Poultry byproduct meal

 

 

(pet food grade)

 

 

Memphis

465.00

-

Fayetteville NC

465.00

-

Hydrolized feather meal

 

 

Atlanta

340.00

-

Delmarva

385.00

-20.00

Fayetteville NC

340.00

-

Ft. Worth

405.00

-

Kansas City

445.00

-10.00

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Memphis

340.00

-

Minneapolis

475.00

-25.00

Menhaden fish meal

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Buffalo

N/A

-

Chicago

1550.00

-

Fayetteville NC

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Kansas City

N/A

-

Memphis

1425.00

-

Minneapolis

1550.00

-

Twin Falls

N/A

-

Blended tuna meal

 

 

Los Angeles

N/A

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

Anchovy  meal

 

 

Los Angeles

N/A

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

ANIMAL FAT, GREASE

 

 

(cents per pound)

 

 

Prime Tallow

 

 

Chicago

23.00

-1.00

Ft. Worth

N/A

-1.00

Los Angeles

21.50

1.00

San Francisco

20.50

-

Yellow grease

 

 

Buffalo

N/A

-

Chicago

22.00

-1.00

Delmarva

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC

18.00

-

Ft. Worth

19.00

-2.00

Kansas City

26.00

-

Los Angeles

20.50

1.00

Memphis

18.00

-

Minneapolis

17.50

-

San Francisco

19.50

-

Choice white grease

 

 

Chicago

24.00

-1.00

Minneapolis

20.00

-0.50

Bleachable fancy tallow

 

 

Buffalo

N/A

-

Chicago

27.00

-2.00

Ft. Worth

19.00

-2.00

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Minneapolis

21.00

-1.00

San Francisco

N/A

-

Vegetable-animal blend

 

 

Ft. Worth

19.50

-2.00

Los Angeles

19.63

-0.38

Minneapolis

17.50

-

San Francisco

19.63

-0.38

Poultry grease

 

 

(feed grade)

 

 

Delmarva

16.00

-

Fayetteville NC

16.00

2.00

Memphis

16.00

2.00

Poultry grease

 

 

(pet food grade)

 

 

Memphis

24.00

-

Fayetteville NC

24.00

-

GLUTEN, HOMINY

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Corn gluten meal

 

 

Buffalo

593.00

-14.00

Chicago

518.00

-12.00

Kansas City

580.00

-15.00

Los Angeles

580.00

-15.00

Corn gluten feed

 

 

Buffalo

158.00

10.00

Chicago

113.00

8.00

Fayetteville NC

140.00

-

Kansas City

155.00

5.00

Okeechobee

160.00

-

Twin Falls

199.00

-

Wahpeton

N/A

-

Hominy feed

 

 

Atlanta

155.00

-

Boston

135.00

-

Buffalo

160.00

5.00

Chicago

101.00

-

Fayetteville NC

N/A

-

Kansas City

110.00

-

Los Angeles

172.00

-3.00

Okeechobee

N/A

-

San Francisco

172.00

-3.00

Twin Falls

185.00

-

BREWERS, DISTILLERS

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Brewers dried grains

 

 

Chicago

N/A

-

Kansas City

N/A

-

Malt Sprouts

 

 

Chicago

150.00

-

Milwaukee

145.00

-

Winona, Minn

145.00

-

Distillers dried grains

 

 

Atlanta

184.00

19.00

Boston

174.00

-

Buffalo

155.00

-20.00

Chicago

130.00

10.00

Fayetteville NC

184.00

19.00

Kansas City

110.00

-

Los Angeles

182.00

9.00

Minneapolis

115.00

5.00

Okeechobee

194.00

19.00

Portland

177.00

0.50

San Francisco

182.00

9.00

Twin Falls

193.00

4.00

Brewers yeast

 

 

(dollars per pound, sacked)

 

 

Chicago

0.75

-

Milwaukee

0.75

-

Minneapolis

0.75

-

ALFALFA

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Dehydrated pellets

 

 

(17% protein)

 

 

Central Neb.

240.00

-

Buffalo

375.00

-

Chicago

340.00

-

Kansas City

275.00

-5.00

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Minneapolis

245.00

-

Toledo

320.00

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

Suncured pellets

 

 

(15% protein)

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

205.00

5.00

Kansas City

190.00

5.00

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Portland

270.00

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

WHEAT MILLFEEDS

 

 

Shorts

 

 

Chicago

135.00

-

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Los Angeles

137.00

-3.00

Millrun

 

 

Los Angeles

128.00

-3.00

Portland

150.00

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

Twin Falls

140.00

-

Bran

 

 

Buffalo

137.00

3.00

Chicago

135.00

-

Los Angeles

132.00

-3.00

Minneapolis

N/A

-

Middlings

 

 

Buffalo

107.00

3.00

Chicago

115.00

-5.00

Fayetteville NC

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

170.00

5.00

Kansas City

105.00

5.00

Los Angeles

135.00

-3.00

Memphis

155.00

7.00

Minneapolis

92.00

14.00

Okeechobee

N/A

-

DAIRY BYPRODUCTS

 

 

(dollars per hundredweight)

 

 

Dried skim milk

 

 

Ft. Worth

96.50

-1.50

Minneapolis

96.50

-1.50

Dried buttermilk

 

 

Ft. Worth

89.88

0.50

Minneapolis

89.88

0.50

Whole whey

 

 

Chicago

20.00

-2.00

Ft. Worth

20.50

0.50

Kansas City

53.50

-

Minneapolis

20.50

0.50

Whey protein concentrate

 

 

Ft. Worth

53.50

-

Milwaukee

53.50

-

Lactose

 

 

Ft. Worth

18.50

-

Minneapolis

18.50

-

OATS, RICE PRODUCTS

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Rolled oats

 

 

Chicago

460.00

-5.00

Kansas City

360.00

-

Minneapolis

543.00

90.00

Crimped oats

 

 

Chicago

415.00

-5.00

Kansas City

290.00

-

Minneapolis

412.00

-

Pulverized oats

 

 

Chicago

140.00

-

Minneapolis

138.00

-

Reground oat feed

 

 

Chicago

70.00

-5.00

Kansas City

50.00

-

Minneapolis

72.00

-

Oats

 

 

(dollars per bushel)

 

 

Buffalo

2.75

-

Minneapolis

2.70

-

Portland*

247.50

2.50

(*per ton)

 

 

Rice bran

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

170.00

-

Freeport

N/A

-

Kansas City

115.00

5.00

Memphis

N/A

-

San Francisco

109.00

-4.00

Stuttgart, Ark.

N/A

-

Rice millfeeds

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

95.00

-

Freeport

N/A

-

Kansas City

98.00

-

Memphis

N/A

-

Stuttgart, Ark.

N/A

-

Rice hulls

 

 

Ft. Worth

60.00

-

Kansas City

58.00

-

DRIED PULP

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Citrus pulp pellets

 

 

Atlanta

195.00

5.00

Fayetteville NC

205.00

5.00

Okeechobee

160.00

-

Los Angeles*

N/A

-

*(sold wet)

 

 

Beet pulp pellets

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Boise

N/A

-

Chicago

210.00

-

Fayetteville NC

N/A

-

Kansas City

440.00

-

Minneapolis

140.00

-

Portland

175.00

-

Saginaw

160.00

-

Beet pulp shreds

 

 

Mpls (sacked)

315.00

-

Los Angeles*

N/A

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

Twin Falls

N/A

-

*bulk, wet

 

 

GRAINS

 

 

Barley feed

 

 

Kansas City (bu.)

4.40

-

Los Angeles (cwt)

10.22

-

Portland (ton)

185.00

-

San Francisco (cwt)

10.22

-

Feed wheat

 

 

Atlanta (bu.)

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC (bu.)

N/A

-

Kansas City (bu)

5.35

0.30

Los Angeles (cwt)

N/A

-

San Francisco (cwt)

N/A

-

Corn

 

 

(dollars per bushel)

 

 

Atlanta

5.43

0.03

Boston

4.12

-

Buffalo (per ton)

150.00

-2.00

Chicago

3.99

0.07

Delmarva

3.42

-0.06

Fayetteville NC

5.43

0.03

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Kansas City

3.76

-

Los Angeles*

9.37

0.15

San Fran (rail)*

9.37

0.15

San Fran (truck)*

N/A

-

Memphis

3.53

-0.15

Minneapolis

3.29

-

Okeechobee

5.66

0.03

Portland (per ton)

172.73

0.97

(*per cwt)

 

 

Milo

 

 

(dollars per bushel)

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Kansas City

3.46

-0.04

Los Angeles*

10.54

0.21

Memphis

3.78

-

*(per cwt.)

 

 

Ground grain screenings

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Ft.  Worth

431.00

-

Kansas City

60.00

-

OTHER

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Almond hulls

 

 

Los Angeles

135.00

10.00

San Francisco

N/A

-

Bakery feed

 

 

Atlanta

165.00

-

Buffalo

165.00

-

Fayetteville NC

170.00

-5.00

Memphis

160.00

-

Minneapolis

160.00

-2.00

Feed urea

 

 

Buffalo

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Minneapolis

N/A

-

Salt

 

 

Kansas City

58.00

-

Los Angeles

50.00

-

Cane molasses

 

 

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Houston

147.50

-

Kansas City

195.00

-

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Memphis

N/A

-

Minneapolis

195.00

-

New Orleans

145.00

-5.00

San Francisco

N/A

-

 

Volume:87 Issue:42

Use FSMA rules to your advantage

Use FSMA rules to your advantage

FORMER President Ronald Reagan once said, "The most terrifying words a person could hear is, 'I'm from the government, and I am here to help.'"

For many of us, this statement accurately summarizes our feelings about government oversight and the general opinion that increased regulation equates to reduced efficiency and profitability.

Some in the feed industry may feel this way regarding the increasing regulatory requirements associated with the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA); however, there are components within FSMA that can actually be advantageous, reduce mistakes and increase productivity.

This article is not intended to sway anyone to jump onto a big government bandwagon but to offer a positive perspective on what is now the law of the land.

The implementation of FSMA gives feed mill managers/supervisors the opportunity to reinforce to co-workers that the feed industry is part of the global food supply chain and to underscore the importance of following procedures and completing required documentation. The required education and training programs can serve as a way to alter undesirable habits and elevate workforce morale.

Conducting a hazard analysis will provide a more in-depth understanding of the mill's processes, its suppliers, their processes and the ingredients being utilized. It also provides a good teaching opportunity and a way to get feedback and buy-in from employees.

Use FSMA rules to your advantage
Understanding hazards and preventative measures helps define and enforce your procedures. It may be helpful to create flow diagrams of each step in a particular process, including the needed documentation. As an example, the Figure illustrates a flow diagram for receiving dry bulk ingredients into a facility. It may seem simple, but it can be an effective means of communicating procedures and understanding the inputs and outputs of those procedures.

Citing regulatory compliance can be used as a tool to bolster production, maintenance and housekeeping expectations. However, don't try to oversell it, or you stand the chance of being viewed as a phony or manipulative. Lead by example.

Expanding policies and procedures beyond food safety is encouraged. Incorporate product quality, employee safety and efficiency into establishing key performance indicators. Use this as an opportunity to reset your management approach to a continuous improvement strategy.

Another valuable component outlined in FSMA is the requirement for corrective actions. There may be some confusion surrounding differences between corrective actions and corrections.

Corrections are simply identifying a problem and immediately finding and implementing a solution. For example, if a bearing fails on a conveyor, the correction would be to replace the bearing and move on.

Conversely, if a bearing failed in the same conveyor numerous times, a corrective action would require deciphering a root cause analysis of the failing part. It is a painstaking process and can serve as a deterrent for future oversights. In short, it is the practice of dissecting mistakes and implementing actions that prevent them from recurring.

Logging and following up on incidences of non-conforming products is heathy. Be honest with yourself about your processes (in or out of control). Hiding them does not benefit anyone and is an act of denial.

Admittedly, it is easier said than done. Use tools such as internal audits to improve and hold your organization to the highest expectations. This will prevent forms and procedures from becoming outdated, ignored or rendered useless. It is a slippery slope if procedures and documentation come to be perceived as meaningless.

Last, an additional benefit of adopting FSMA is the practice of performing mock product recalls. It may sound intimidating, but it really just entails tracking down purchase orders, lot numbers, feed orders, production records, delivery records, etc. Then, track responsiveness and effectiveness. It can be a useful exercise that reinforces awareness among employees. Provide real-world examples of feed manufacturing facilities involved in lawsuits to make a point; it will make an impression.

In conclusion, increased regulatory requirements generally tend to spark negative discussions and resentment. However, there may be a silver lining when it comes to implementing FSMA. Developing a management system that embraces food safety, quality, employee safety and production efficiency may benefit your organization.

Agree or disagree, we encourage you to keep looking for opportunities as the business climate continues to evolve.

*Dr. Leland McKinney is with DFS Inc. in Johnston, Iowa. Dr. Adam Fahrenholz is assistant professor in the Prestage department of poultry science at North Carolina State University. Dr. Charles Stark is the Jim & Carol Brown associate professor in feed technology at Kansas State University.

Volume:87 Issue:42

OSHA program protects poultry worker safety

OSHA program protects poultry worker safety

THE U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) launched a new Regional Emphasis Program in southeastern states intended to protect poultry industry workers and reduce injury and illness rates.

The program will focus on poultry workers in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that these states represented 29 billion lb. of the total 51 billion lb. of chicken produced in the U.S.

OSHA's emphasis program begins with a three-month period of education and prevention outreach activities to share safety and health information with employers, associations and workers. Employers are encouraged to use this period to bring their facilities into compliance with OSHA standards, if they are not already.

The agency will then begin its targeted enforcement phase, including on-site inspections and a review of poultry processing production operations, working conditions, recordkeeping, chemical handling and safety and health programs, to ensure compliance.

"The Regional Emphasis Program is designed to reduce employee exposure to crippling injuries, such as musculoskeletal disorders, and to ensure the industry records all occupational injuries and illnesses accurately," said Kurt Petermeyer, OSHA's regional administrator in Atlanta, Ga.

On a related note, Tyson Foods announced a new pilot project designed to improve workplace safety, awareness and practices as well as provide more detailed data about safety, according to company officials. The findings of the pilot project, which is being conducted at nine plant locations, are expected to provide the groundwork for a company-wide improved safety initiative.

"Along with enhancing goals to reduce and eliminate work-related injuries and illnesses, we'll be continuing efforts to improve workplace health through ergonomics — the science of making the workplace fit the worker. Sometimes, we can prevent a repetitive injury by modifying a workspace or providing different tools," said Greg Spencer, who was recently appointed to the new position of senior vice president of health and safety and who will be overseeing the pilot project for Tyson.

 

Workers' rights

OSHA program protects poultry worker safety
Coinciding with the announcement from OSHA, Oxfam America released a new report detailing the poultry industry's labor practices and is attempting to persuade consumers to put additional pressure on poultry companies to "change their unfair policies and ensure that workers can assert their rights without fear of retribution," Oxfam America president Ray Offenheiser said.

The report cites dozens of medical and government studies that document how the "relentless pace of the processing line and more than 20,000 cutting, pulling and hanging motions per worker per day contribute to painful and crippling musculoskeletal injuries." Poultry workers suffer carpal tunnel syndrome seven times more often than workers in all other industries and suffer occupational illnesses at five times the rate, Oxfam said in its news release.

In a joint statement, the U.S. Poultry & Egg Assn. and National Chicken Council touted the improvements the industry has made over the past several decades, pointing out that the incidence of occupational injuries and illnesses within the poultry sector's slaughter and processing facilities has fallen 80% in the last 20 years. They also noted that the injury rate of 4.5 per 100 workers is on par with all manufacturing jobs and is decreasing at a much faster rate (Figure).

"In fact, when comparing apples to apples, which Oxfam neglected to do, poultry processing's rate is much lower than all animal slaughtering and processing and lower than all food manufacturing in general," the poultry groups said in their statement.

The Oxfam report calls for compensating workers fairly, stating that most workers on the poultry processing line earn wages near or below the poverty line. Wages average around $11 per hour, with annual income between $20,000 and $25,000.

Tyson announced Oct. 23 that it would increase pay at its chicken plants beginning Nov. 1. This includes raising the starting pay for production workers at almost 40 plants to at least $10 an hour. The starting rate at some facilities previously had been in the $8-9 range.

The top hourly production pay in Tyson's chicken operations exceeds $16 an hour.

Maintenance and refrigeration workers at the 51 chicken plants will also see increases of varying amounts. As a result, the top pay for some maintenance jobs will reach $23 an hour, while the highest pay for certain refrigeration jobs will be $26 an hour.

Volume:87 Issue:42

Mississippi River Watershed gets D+

Mississippi River Watershed gets D+

Mississippi River Watershed gets D+
LEADERS representing organizations from more than 20 states recently gathered in St. Louis, Mo., to announce the release of a first-ever report card for the entire Mississippi River Basin, which stretches across all or part of 31 states and covers more than 41% of the continental U.S. (Map).

The leaders were part of America's Watershed Initiative, which has worked with more than 700 stakeholders and experts from more than 400 business, government and science organizations to identify key measurements and data sources to grade the watershed on six goals: (1) clean, abundant water, (2) marine transportation, (3) flood control and risk reduction, (4) the economy, (5) recreation and (6) ecosystem health (Infographic).

The report card also provides assessments for five major sub-basins: (1) the Upper Mississippi River, (2) the Lower Mississippi River, (3) the Ohio and Tennessee rivers, (4) the Arkansas and Red rivers and (5) the Missouri River.

For the entire watershed, the average grade overall for the six goals was a D+.

"The rivers and waters in the Mississippi watershed are the lifeblood for our nation, our economy and our communities. More than half the services and goods in America are produced with water flowing in this system," said Steve Mathies, steering committee member for America's Watershed Initiative. "Raising the grade for the watershed is critical for our continued economic vitality and that of our children and grandchildren."

Teri Goodmann, another steering committee member who is also assistant manager of the city of Dubuque, Iowa, noted that the rivers assessed by the initiative provide clean drinking water for millions of people and water for farms and ranches that produce $54 billion worth of food and goods each year.

"We all need clean drinking water. Clearly, our future health and economic growth in the U.S. depend on the clean and abundant waters that flow in the Mississippi River Watershed," she said.

Positive results in some of the basins and for some goals across the entire watershed were offset by significant challenges. Specifically, the assessments for transportation, water supply and flood control and risk reduction received some of the worst grades. Two of the three measurements for transportation — infrastructure condition and infrastructure maintenance — received the lowest grades of all goals measured.

"Our aging water infrastructure desperately weakens America's capability to reliably and efficiently move and export food and goods. It directly impacts people's ability to live safely and productively in communities along the world's most productive alluvial valley. Reinvestment in our high-return water infrastructure is our legacy," Stephen Gambrell, director of the Mississippi River Commission, said.

"The water commerce network, which depends on our heartland rivers, moves millions of tons of goods safely, reliably and efficiently, generating billions in economic value for the United States. The longer we wait to invest in raising the grade of America's watershed, the more it will cost our children, our national security and the nation's future opportunities," he added.

The report card also addressed watershed-wide challenges, such as the size of the hypoxic zone, or "dead zone," in the Gulf of Mexico and the rate of coastal wetland loss in Louisiana; both were rated as "poor."

The report card represents the first time the six broad goals have been assessed and presented in a single document for the Mississippi River Watershed.

"Goals without measures aren't achieved," Harald "Jordy" Jordahl, director of America's Watershed Initiative, said. "The report card helps develop in one place a clear measure of the watershed to focus action."

Jordahl said the report card results pointed to three types of action needed for the watershed.

First, Jordahl said new investments at the state and local levels and from the private sector are needed alongside federal funding to ensure that the watershed can provide the critical benefits the nation relies on now and into the future.

Second, more collaboration among diverse stakeholders is needed to better connect and target these investments, create long-term partnerships and provide broader, multiple benefits for communities, the economy and nature, he said.

Third, Jordahl said he hopes America's Watershed Initiative will encourage even more engagement throughout the watershed — starting at the local level — to produce solutions that can be shared and scaled up across the entire watershed.

During the St. Louis meeting, the leaders pledged to work together to develop a three-year plan with specific actions to raise the grade for the Mississippi River Watershed.

Additional detailed reports on the report card's findings and next steps will be released in the months ahead.

Volume:87 Issue:42

Livestock & poultry cash market comparisons, 11/2/15

Livestock & poultry cash market comparisons, 11/2/15

Livestock and meat ($)

Oct. 28

Oct. 21

6 months ago

Year ago

Steers, Choice, carcass, 550-700 lb., cwt., Omaha

220.14

216.49

258.55

253.63

Steers, Choice, 1,050-1,200 lb., cwt. Southern Plains

138.00

136.00

158.00

170.00

Feeder Steers, 600-700 lb., cwt., Oklahoma City

198.25A

198.75A

249.50A

244.00A

Lean Hogs, Carcass, Iowa-Minn. 167-187 lb.(1)

69.11

71.84

66.64

90.78

Feeder Pigs, 40 lb. National Direct Delivered(2)

50.34

47.10

66.02

81.75

SEW Pigs, 10 lb., National direct delivered (per head)

36.84

36.73

37.14

67.65

Choice Beef, cutout, cwt.

220.93

217.47

256.90

253.35

Pork Loin, 185 lb. 51-52% lean, cutout, cwt.(3)

84.86

88.63

89.15

104.51

Hog Corn Ratio

18.30

19.61

19.64

26.15

Steer Corn Ratio

38.76

38.20

41.47

51.36

Poultry and eggs (cents)

 

 

 

 

Chickens, Grade A, Fresh lb. Chicago

N/A

72.58a

105.01a

100.71a

Hen Turkeys, Grade A, Frozen, lb., Chicago

N/A

134.00Aa

105.50Aa

116.50Aa

Young Tom Turkeys, Grade A. Frozen lb. Chicago

N/A

135.50Aa

108.00Aa

118.00Aa

Eggs, Grade A, Large, doz., Chicago

145.50

145.50

102.50

117.50

N/A: not available

A: average

 

 

 

(1) Replaces live hogs; live hogs are 0.755 of quote.
(2) Replaces Sioux Falls, 50-60 lbs. (2/26/07)
(3) National FOB plant, replaces national daily carlot.
Livestock, meat, poultry and egg prices from USDA.

 

Volume:87 Issue:42

Grain & ingredient cash market comparisons, 11/2/15

Grain & ingredient cash market comparisons, 11/2/15

Major feed ingredients

Oct. 28

Oct. 21

6 months ago

Year ago

Corn No. 2, Chicago, bu.

 

 

 

 

Processor bid*

3.87A

N/A

3.71A

3.66A

Terminal bid*

3.67A

N/A

3.56A

3.53A

Milo, Kansas City, cwt.

6.17

6.25

7.75

6.51

Soybeans, Chicago, bu., processor bid

8.84A

N/A

9.78A

10.38A

Soybean Meal, 48% Decatur Bid

317.40A

N/A

341.20A

450.20A

Cottonseed Meal, Memphis, ton

300.00

290.00

270.00

295.00

Canola meal, Minneapolis, ton

239.90

262.70

263.10

300.60

Linseed Meal, Solvent, Minneapolis

215.00

215.00

240.00

230.00

Meat and Bone Meal, Chicago, ton

298.00

298.00

403.00

395.00

Fish Meal, Menhaden, Atlanta, ton

N/A

N/A

N/A

1,125.00

Corn Gluten Meal, 60%, Chicago, ton

518.00

530.00

584.00

568.00

Distillers Dried Grains, Chicago, ton

130.00

120.00

195.00

92.00

17% Dehy. Alfalfa Pellets, KC, ton

275.00

280.00

290.00

300.00

Millfeeds, Midds, Minneapolis, ton

92.00

78.00

100.00

95.00

Molasses, Cane, Houston, ton

147.50

147.50

150.00

150.00

Dried Citrus Pulp, Atlanta, ton

195.00

190.00

N/A

180.00

Whey, Whole, Chicago, cwt.

20.00

22.00

42.00

61.00

Rolled Oats, Minneapolis, ton

543.00

453.00

490.00

517.00

Barley, Los Angeles , cwt.

10.00

10.22

9.35

9.85

Feeding Wheat, Kansas City, bu.

5.35

5.05

4.65

5.00

* Chicago corn and soybean prices for latest and previous week are the middle of the range of to-arrive bids; soybean meal prices are midrange of processor quotes. Chicago corn and soybean prices provided by USDA Market News. Six months, year ago comparisons are all spot cash. Based on prices reported by Feedstuffs' market reporters.

A: average

N/A: not available

 

Volume:87 Issue:42

Chicken sector reacts to low prices

Chicken sector reacts to low prices

Chicken sector reacts to low prices
CHICKEN companies had been expanding production for several months, but now they are beginning to respond to much lower product prices, warranting close monitoring of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's weekly data on the chicken industry, Len Steiner and Steve Meyer wrote in the "Daily Livestock Report."

Margins have been eroding for months and dropped into the red in about mid-September on the large birds, which are the bulk of production, they said. Additionally, the outlook for chicken exports over the next few months remains poor.

"Recent data on eggs set in incubators and chicks placed into growing facilities are beginning to suggest a pullback in the rate of growth in chicken production in coming months," Steiner and Meyer said.

There was a 1% drop in eggs set for the week ending Oct. 24 versus a year earlier (Figure), and placements also declined 1%.

Steiner and Meyer said the numbers have declined in a rather typical fashion.

"Year-over-year change is the key; expectations are that modest declines in eggs set and chicks placed will persist. Looking ahead, bird weights will be the key factor that determines tonnage that must be absorbed by markets," they explained.

Weekly egg set numbers continue to move lower, but this is not having any impact on the market — at least not yet, according to Urner Barry analyst Terence Wells.

The broiler hatchery report has shown fewer eggs year over year for the eighth week in a row now, which Wells said is giving observers something new and exciting to talk about.

"The industry, which basically saturated itself with too much supply this year, appears to be making an adjustment. It may be several weeks or even months before we see a 'cutback' in the number of head slaughtered, but from afar, it looks like processors are taking a step in a more conservative direction," he said.

That being said, there are still major concerns from the galley that this isn't enough, Wells added.

"Cutting back on the head count is one part of the equation, but many feel that bird weights are the bigger issue here," he said.

In 2015, average liveweights have increased from 5.98 lb. to 6.09 lb., up almost 2%. Combine that with 2.7% more head, and the results are obvious, Wells said. The amount of ready-to-cook chicken increased more than 1.2 billion lb. through August, or 5% year to date.

"So, while egg set numbers are clearly trending lower, industry participants may want to wait and see whether or not bird weights are also adjusted lower before jumping to any conclusions," he said.

 

Cold storage

September total red meat supplies were at their largest levels since USDA first began recording the data in 1916, according to the latest "Cold Storage" report. Total supplies of red meat in freezers were up 2% from the previous month and 24% higher than the same time last year.

Total pounds of beef in freezers increased 6% from the previous month and were 31% higher than last year. The total set a record high for the month of September since USDA first started recording the data.

Frozen pork supplies increased slightly from the previous month but were 19% higher than the same time last year. Total pork also set a record high for the month of September in the history of the data series. Stocks of pork bellies, however, decreased 21% from last month and were 68% lower than last year.

Total frozen poultry supplies in September decreased slightly from the previous month but increased 13% from a year ago. Total stocks of chicken were 2% higher than the previous month and 28% higher than last year. Total pounds of turkey in freezers decreased 5% from last month and were 6% lower than in September 2014.

 

Market recap

Livestock futures moved lower last week after the U.N. World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified processed meat as carcinogenic and classified red meat as "probably carcinogenic."

Cattle markets remained volatile last week as market participants assessed the current situation and tried to forecast the fallout.

October live cattle futures closed lower last Monday at $139.55/cwt. and moved even lower Tuesday to $136.675/cwt. before recovering the losses by Thursday to close at $140.125/cwt.

October feeder cattle were also affected by the negative movement in the markets, closing lower last Monday and again on Tuesday at $192.60/cwt. Nearby contracts recovered Wednesday to $193.50/cwt. but closed lower again on Thursday at $193.15/cwt.

The beef cutout continued to climb last week. The Choice cutout closed higher on Thursday at $220.93/cwt. Despite being lower for the week, the Select cutout finished higher than the week before, at $211.55/cwt.

Lean hog futures lost almost 600 points last week — one of the biggest weekly declines for the year — after negative media coverage surrounding the IARC report focused mainly on pork items like ham and bacon.

Nearby contracts fell from $66.45/cwt. on Oct. 22 to $59.875/cwt. by last Thursday; the only day they finished higher was last Wednesday, at $61.40/cwt.

Hogs delivered to the western Corn Belt last Thursday decreased from the prior week to $65.14/cwt.

Pork cutout values finished lower last Thursday, with wholesale pork cutout values falling sharply to $80.78/cwt. versus $88.02/cwt. the previous week. Loins closed higher at $84.86/cwt. but were down from the prior week. Hams finished more than 10 cents lower than the previous week, at $55.54/cwt. Pork bellies plunged more than 20 cents during the week — from $164.98/cwt. to $142.80/cwt. — as a result of the IARC report.

In the poultry markets, the Georgia dock fell another 25 cents to $1.1375/lb. last Wednesday. Breast meat fell to $1.605/lb. from $1.69/lb. the previous week. Leg quarters slightly declined to 42 cents/lb., while wings decreased to $1.555/lb.

According to USDA, California and regional egg prices were unchanged last week, with a higher undertone. Offerings were light to moderate and were held with increased confidence in most areas. Supplies were mixed in a light to heavy range, but they were usually moderate, USDA said.

There was little change in egg prices last week, with large eggs delivered to the Northeast at $1.47-1.51/doz., eggs delivered to the Southeast at $1.49-1.52/doz., eggs delivered to the Midwest at $1.43-1.46/doz. and eggs for California at $2.31/doz.

The turkey markets were steady to firm last week, but mostly steady, with offering prices trending light to moderate. Prices for hens and toms were nearly unchanged last Thursday at $1.30-1.39/lb. and $1.32-1.39/lb., respectively.

Volume:87 Issue:42

Science doesn't support IARC decision on meat (commentary)

Science doesn't support IARC decision on meat (commentary)

*Philip Ellis is president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn.

WE learned that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has voted to tell the world that they believe processed meats are a human carcinogen; similarly, they have decided that red meat is a "probable carcinogen."

Let me be clear, this group did not conduct new research during their meeting; they simply reviewed existing evidence, including six studies submitted by the beef checkoff. That evidence had already been reviewed and weighed by the medical and scientific community. The science reviewed by IARC simply does not support its decision.

We know that there isn't clear evidence to support IARC's decision because the beef checkoff has commissioned independent studies on the topic for a decade. In fact, countless studies have been conducted by cancer and medical experts, and they have all determined the same thing: No one food can cause or cure cancer. That hasn't prevented IARC from deciding otherwise.

Since IARC began meeting in 1979, these experts have reviewed more than 900 compounds, products and factors for possible correlation with cancer. To date, only one product (caprolactam, which is a chemical primarily used to create synthetic fibers like nylon) has been granted a rating of 4, which indicates that it is "probably not carcinogenic to humans." Most other factors or products that have been examined by the body, including glyphosate, aloe vera, nightshift work and sunlight, have fallen into three categories: 2B — "possibly carcinogenic to humans," 2A — "probably carcinogenic to humans" or 1 — "carcinogenic to humans."

It seemed likely from the beginning that we'd find ourselves here. We knew the deck was stacked against us, but for nearly 100 years, the beef industry has supported nutrition research to advance the understanding of beef's role in a balanced and healthful diet, as part of our commitment to providing wholesome, nutritious food to Americans. We abide by a "Nutrition Statement of Principles" that guides our actions and communications about beef in regard to nutrition and health.

We have long been working on providing credible research that is consistent with what many others outside our industry have already verified: A full, fair and unbiased examination of the entire body of research does not support a finding that red or processed meats cause cancer.

This conclusion isn't mine alone, and you can evaluate the information for yourself. We've posted the studies reviewed by IARC and other information about the committee's findings on the website factsaboutbeef.com. At the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., our team of experts has also been working with our state partners and other industry organizations to ensure that consumers understand what the science really shows.

As just one example of the work we've done, we commissioned a study with the same body of research reviewed by IARC. Our study engaged a panel of 22 epidemiologists from the U.S. and abroad who were recruited by a third-party research group. Researchers in the study averaged 22 years of experience, and the full panel had a combined total of 475 years of experience.

They were provided with a meta-analysis graph that showed data for a specific exposure and a specific human disease outcome, but the specific human disease outcome (colorectal cancer) and exposure (red meat) were not revealed. In other words, they plotted the results of the study findings on a graph without telling the participants what product the studies examined.

Of the 22 participants in the study, 21 (or 95%) said their assessment showed that the magnitude of the association was weak. Of the 22 epidemiologists, only 10 (or 45%) said there even was a possible association. Perhaps most important, the epidemiologists agreed that, given the data provided, there was not sufficient evidence to make public health recommendations.

Cancer is a complex subject, and no one understands fully what causes it or how it can be prevented. Despite billions of dollars spent on research, we only know that no single food can cause or prevent cancer. We also know, thanks in part to decades of producer-funded work on the subject, that when people lead overall healthy lifestyles and maintain a healthy weight, they reduce their risks for chronic diseases such as cancer.

Our team and state partners are hard at work on this topic to be certain that consumers and their influencers know and understand beef's role in a healthy diet, regardless of what IARC might say.

Volume:87 Issue:42