Lowest US cow/heifer inventory since 1941.

[BTDT]

FYI:
U.S. Beef Herd Is Mostly Black But Changing Slightly
http://beefmagazine.com/cattle-genetics/us-beef-herd-mostly-black-changing-slightly?intlink=rceoc

Actually, if you deal in percentages and not absolute numbers, black angus is losing ground FAST on the cattle population.

Low numbers can be attributed to:
  1. Bad press - from both inside and outside of the beef industry.
  2. International issues - GMO/organic issues, Brazil, mexico, Australia, etc have increased their production
  3. Regulations - Why raise something in the US and deal with the Alphabet of gov't offices when you can go overseas and not deal with the alphabet?
  4. Much easier ways to make money on a farm w/ all the crop subsidies, (not more rewarding, but easier)
  5. Older farmer population is finding out that they can not longer care for 100's of head, so they are cutting back and no youngsters are taking their place.
  6. Mother nature - drought, floods, blizzards.
  7. CAB - Yep, I said it. While they are lowering their standards, they are putting a "premium label" on not so premium product. The consumer pays then gets shafted. Hard to get those consumers back.
  8. The popular belief from non-farmers that food is cheap and easy to produce and therefore, should be all but free. (No water for ag. Regulations for ag and not golf courses, etc)

 

[chambero]

I don't know of a single person that has sold cows or got out of the cattle business because of external, quasi-political influences like "bad press", foreign imports, etc.

As DLD and some others have said, drought is the dominant short-term reason and I don't think any of the other reasons come close.  I remember the Dakotas being hammered several years ago, the midwest last year, and those of us in Tex/Ok for much of the past three years.  Personally, we are hanging on to our numbers by a thread.

That being said, state water laws are not to blame.  I understand what is going on in California right now, but to think that agriculture is the only loser in time of drought is just incorrect and takes our focus off actually fixing issues and becoming more efficient.  In almost every part of the country, agriculture is the biggest water consumer by a long shot - as it should be.  But when you just don't have enough water - nobody gets everything they want.  Landscaping businesses in our area have shut down much quicker than cattle ranchers or farmers.  Don't fool yourselves into thinking the urban Californian water users aren't more highly regulated than ag.  They are everywhere - farmers/ranchers just don't hear about it and don't care.  The reality is we grow lots of crops in lots of places they were never naturally meant to grow.  For example, Arizona and California used to grow more cotton that almost all of the southern states.  I think that has changed, but really??????  Cheap water has let us do stupid things for a long time.  Drought brings those warts to light.

Changing demographics of cattle ranching is a long-term problem.  One of the main contributors to lack of interest from young people is the fact their parents/grandparents are not only living longer, but are also healthier longer.  Not that long ago, people were forced to turn over operations to their kids in their 60s as their health really started failing.  A lof of folks in that generation now aren't willing to treat their kids the way they were treated.  Add that in to the continued fragmentation of land, and it's just not a very good prospect right now.  Emphasis on the right now part.  My big question - and I'm really struggling on how to advise my sons - is will that always be the answer.  When the current generation of land holders finally starts dying, will there then be a huge opportunity in ranching for kids that are now teenagers?  Frankly - the opportunity doesn't really exist for those of us in our 30s and 40s right now - but maybe its just skipping a couple of generations.  Will that be the case ten years from now?  I really wonder what the demand for land will be?

Kind of the same thing we are seeing on "trades" versus college education.  For many young rural men, I think there is a whole lot more opportunity in traditional construction trades (welding, electricians, etc) than there is in any of the non STEM degree programs in college.

I think its worth thinking about on how we advise your kids as they are evaluating career paths.

 

[knabe]

http://zeroresource.com/2010/07/22/they-dont-have-water-meters/

Fresno’s water rates are some of the lowest in California, and it has some of the highest water use (3 times as high as Los Angeles residents, and 5 times as high as San Francisco residents, via The California Report. There is an interesting study comparing water rates – when the study was conducted (2006), the average monthly charge was $18.52 in Fresno County, $37.55 in Alameda County, and $57.25 in Santa Cruz County.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_25090364/california-drought-water-use-varies-widely-around-state

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/utilities/water/water-meter-faqs.cfm


In addition, the State law requiring water meters provided no funding to help offset costs.  NO KIDDING!!!!!!

 

[knabe]

to me, it doesn't really matter where someone grows cotton, it could be in the sahara for all i care.


but.... the government shouldn't be subsidizing the crop, water, land prices, insurance and holding costs in line. if the government would get out of price fixing, resources may tend to go where they are more efficient.


the government in california and maybe nevada, is busy trying to get everyone in water districts.


their motivation for doing this is to charge a fee for draining ground water, even if it is a well on one's own property.  they then can manage any water delivered to you from federal or state projects.


unfortunately in california, dams are an environmental issue and we are actually removing dams. we are also considering raising dam levels, like san luis reservoir by 10 feet. what one could do is have dredging projects on the ready during dry months or years to remove valuable topsoil and generate more room behind the dams.


the government also should absolutely NOT be the last resort for flood insurance, especially behind levees they have created, and especially on highly organic soils that subside like in the delta area and new orleans.


oh well.  the government will keep doing it because they can print money and deflect the issue with social issues while politicians commit fraud.


http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_25267974/corruption-scandals-cost-california-democrats-supermajority-control-senate


california is becoming chicago.

 

[chambero]

People commonly bring up this dredging idea and there is a very good reason it's not done - it is prohibitively expensive.  People don't understand the huge volumes of soil involved to actually make a difference.  Transportation costs eat you alive.  To put it simple, it's really the main reason we build dams instead of digging giant holes in the ground to hold water. 

The cheapest way to dredge involves "in-water" dredging where you can pump the sediment to a disposal site. This type of dredging is commonly done around ports and ship channels where you are just trying to buy a couple of extra feet of freeboard.  Freshwater dredging is almost always for recreational purposes and not to increase water capacity.

For all of the criticisms of subsidies, this sytem along with technological improvements has essentially helped end the days of famine - from both hunger and thirst.  When these extreme droughts hit us - we bitch a lot and maybe sell some animals.  For most of human history (including not all that long ago - Dustbowl), we just died or were forced to make mass exoduses.  When you get down to it, I'm not really of a mind to expirament to figure out which component of our current system is the most critical.

 

[DLD]

The past three years of intense drought have tried to finish us off, but we've been in a drier trend for like 10 years.  25 years ago (when I bought my first place), you pretty much figured on a quarter section of dryland improved grass around here being able to support 25-30 cows year round (with supplemental protein, of course), or 40-50 cows if you provided winter hay from another source.  That is of course, keeping it sprayed and fertilized.  I ran 75 cows on 240 acres successfully for several years.  Now we can run closer to half that - and like chambero said, we're just holding on to those numbers by a thread.

I don't think politics of any kind is directly affecting cow numbers in this part of the world either.  Another factor that does affect it to some extent is prices - heifers are, for many producers, just too valuable to keep.  They're worth so much as feeders that many are reluctant to keep or buy back quality replacements.  No one can complain that prices are too high, but they're still not conducive to expansion in the current environment of limited grazing and high $ feed.  Some of the best money to be made in the cattle business right now is buying heifers at weaning, growing them out, breeding them and then calving them out and selling those first calf heifer pairs.  The biggest problem with that scenario is how long it is 'til payday - it's hard to get the financing to get that program started, but payday would be awfully sweet right now.

 

[vc]

They dredged a lake in my area when the water was low, is was all river sand, very easy to get rid of, sold it by the yard. It was done by private companies who bid on the rights to the sand. Then the environmentalist got their hands into it and the practice stopped. Now when the lake is low the willows grow so thick that when we do get a wet year, the river bed that feeds the lake overflows and floods the areas up river from the lake.

Here is a link to a dam raising project going on in my area, they doubled the storage capacity.

http://www.sdcwa.org/san-vicente-dam-raise

 

[knabe]

People commonly bring up this dredging idea and there is a very good reason it's not done - it is prohibitively expensive. 

i know.  on the other hand, the cost of new orleans sinking 24 feet in over 200 years has been expensive.  same with the delta in my area.  the government keeps building levees, allowing the building of homes behind them, then floods hit, and things happen. 


personally, i have to wonder what the sinking of rivers has to do with salt intrusion. maybe nothing.

 

[RyanChandler]

http://youtu.be/wEKkJHSO8A0

 

[chambero]

They dredged a lake in my area when the water was low, is was all river sand, very easy to get rid of, sold it by the yard. It was done by private companies who bid on the rights to the sand. Then the environmentalist got their hands into it and the practice stopped. Now when the lake is low the willows grow so thick that when we do get a wet year, the river bed that feeds the lake overflows and floods the areas up river from the lake.

http://www.sdcwa.org/san-vicente-dam-raise

The vast majority of lakes fill in with very fine sediment - basically clay.  They basically turned your example into a sand mine, which would rarely be possible, at least in our part of the world.  Any type of dredging operation requires permits.  Often, sediment contains elevated levels of heavy metals and pesticides/herbicides that precludes unrestricted use of that material for clean fill.  A little off topic, but something I work with often in my job so it's an interest of mine.

I'm very familiar with the San Vicente Dam Raise Project.  My company pursued that project but didn't win it.

 

[vc]

Lake Hodges is fed from a large area, most of the water runs through a dry river bed, lots of sand (most of that was used for dry utility work. Back in the late 70's we had record rain fall, most of the dredging equipment was lost in the river bed, I remember seeing the last 3 feet of the boom on a track hoe sticking out of the sand. They also ran cattle in the area, the environmentalist put a stop to that as well, those cows could keep the willows under control, once they pulled the cattle out, the willows went out of control.